Rumor: Microsoft Killed PC/Xbox Cross Platform Play

[BishopOfBattle]

As has been pointed out multiple times on this topic and even for years in other discussions, yes, the PC players have an advantage in an unaltered cross platform game. Still, I'm sad they didn't explore this opportunity more.

What about other Genres...RTS excluded. Driving games for example could have maintained the cross platform capabilities, also simulators, some RPGs, sport games, etc.

Certainly, there are platforms where PC and Console players could be on an even playing field. I would, however, argue that there's another way it could have gone that I would like to have seen.

Take the competition between PC gamers and Console players by assigning them different characteristics. Since FPSs play so well on PC, make the foot troops in your Battlefield style game PC players. Console players, arguably, can control vehicles as well or more naturally than your average PC setup so spawn them in as drivers of tanks, transports, planes, mechs and other vehicles and roles that don't require the twitch gameplay to be competitive.

There are many other interesting ways, I'm sure, in which multiple play styles could be mixed with cross platform gameplay that haven't been explored because this initiative died. Is pitting PC and Console players head to head in the same game where one side has an obvoius advantage a bad idea? Certainly. Does that make cross platform gameplay instantly a bad idea? No, it certainly does not.

 

[GodKlown]

As I recall, this program was called Games for Windows, which had a nifty little box on the front of PC games to inform the gamer that they could play the game via Windows Live which could integrate with XBL, with games such as MW2. After two years or so of this idea being in place, they had only released about a dozen games that were compatible with this. Microsoft certainly didn't appear to want to throw a lot of thought into making this a more regular part of PC gaming, so really blaming either PC or console gamers isn't the point. Technical differences aside, people still would have played against each other in the PC vs. console arena for the fun of it. All this dick-waving about which is best is really a giant waste of time because the company that secures games for both platforms just didn't bring availability to all gamers as a whole. I find a lot of faults in the original argument that anyone had a distinct advantage over the other. If you spent enough time on one system or the other, it isn't unreasonable to expect you would become rather proficient at playing on said system. If you weren't any good, odds are it isn't the system holding you back but your ability to manipulate the device correctly. But I stray...

If you look in the bargain bins at your local game store that sells PC games, I'm sure you can still find some of those titles from 07 and 08. Whether or not they still work is a good question, but you can certainly try them out.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

I like PC game mechanics a lot, but it's a huge advantage over console gamers...I wonder if any PC gamers are proud that they beat console gamers with easier and more efficient mechanics?

PC Gamers don't have an advantage over console gamers, they're just inherently better at video games.
That's why even a "mediocre" player can eat these so-called "experts" alive.

So all PC gamers are better than console gamers? Just clarifying because even though I PC game, I wouldn't make that generalization.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

It's simply a biological fact that you can get beter motor accuracy with your hand than with your least agile finger, the thumb.

This sir is correct. It's not a matter of PC gaming being superior, the mouse is just a more ergonomic and more ideal control mechanism for almost anything.

Cross platform gaming could still work, just not for twitch based games like FPS's. What about Action RPG's, or MMORPG's like DC online is doing.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Not surprised. The average Starcraft player has a 250 actions-per-minute count. Oh, and to those not paying attention, that's about four actions per second. I know the testing was probably done with an FPS title, but still; I'm sure a console player can't push a button 250 times per minute.

 

[Weaver]

I'd love to challenge any console player to go up against me in a given FPS using a controller with auto aim turned off.

I've been gaming for 20 years and I've played so many FPS games it's nearly sickening. I find that, at least for me, the mouse is absolutely unparalleled. Anyone who has played competitive quake/unreal tournament can testify to how hectic it is. It's simply not possible to make movements that precise and that quick with a controller.

Tell me you could do this with a controller and no auto aim:

 

[Doug]

Console defense force, Mobilize!

So, the CDF vs the PC Guardians? I see how this is going down...

 

[Doug]

Console defense force, Mobilize!

So, the CDF vs the PC Guardians? I see how this is going down...

I decided the most brief response I could make, would be the least provocative. Being a PC gamer, I already have my own opinion on the matter. But, I couldn't help but take a small jab given this particular subject has been a hot topic for quite awhile.

I suspect it'll go down like this, only without the handshaking at the end:

 

[Motiv_]

Consoles, in my experience, are better with fighting and racing games, as the mouse doesn't really come into play that much in either. But, FPS's seem to work well due to the twitch capabilities of the mouse. RTS's and RPGs work well due to the obscene amount of hotkeys on the keyboard allowing for 250+ actions per minute.

Tell me you could do this with a controller and no auto aim:

To be fair, Fatality was once named the best quake player in the world, with I believe a 16 game winning streak. But yes, that would be impossible on console for sure.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Ok, we all know it's easier to use a mouse to put a cursor over your opponent than to use a controller. So, how does that make PC players better? It means they have an advantage over input methods, not skill. If all PC gamers were as skillfull as many seem to be making them out to be they should be as successful using any type of control method, why not test that out?

Take a group of PC only gamers and have them use a regular controller and let the console gamers use a mouse and keyboard-explain what how they work and let them get used to it for a half hour then start a match between them. My theory is that the PC gamers using a controller will be trounced and prove that it isn't skill that they have, but a rediculously easy way to aim.

 

[Weaver]

Consoles, in my experience, are better with fighting and racing games, as the mouse doesn't really come into play that much in either. But, FPS's seem to work well due to the twitch capabilities of the mouse. RTS's and RPGs work well due to the obscene amount of hotkeys on the keyboard allowing for 250+ actions per minute.

Tell me you could do this with a controller and no auto aim:
*snip*

To be fair, Fatality was once named the best quake player in the world, with I believe a 16 game winning streak. But yes, that would be impossible on console for sure.

I realize the example is obviously extreme, but I wanted to demonstrate the potential of the mouse

 

[Weaver]

Ok, we all know it's easier to use a mouse to put a cursor over your opponent than to use a controller. So, how does that make PC players better? It means they have an advantage over input methods, not skill. If all PC gamers were as skillfull as many seem to be making them out to be they should be as successful using any type of control method, why not test that out?

Take a group of PC only gamers and have them use a regular controller and let the console gamers use a mouse and keyboard-explain what how they work and let them get used to it for a half hour then start a match between them. My theory is that the PC gamers using a controller will be trounced and prove that it isn't skill that they have, but a rediculously easy way to aim.

This is a completely bogus claim. As with any UI, and a controller is a user interface, every person must go through a familiarization phase. Be it working a stove, opening a door, drinking from a cup or using a controller, every UI has a learning phase.

As an example, someone could be really familiar with driving a car. However, if instead of a steering wheel you put an Xbox 360 controller in the car do you really, really expect them to be able to drive as well? Of course not as they have not familiarized themselves with the UI. They could be the best race car driver in the world, but it wouldn't matter.

Furthermore, the switch from mouse to gamepad is a matter of switching device classifications. I don't know how much education you have in UI's, but the mouse is a clutched positioning device and a joystick is a relative positioning device - they're very different devices and generally, clutched positioning devices are more suited for precision.

Finally, then, all we can conclude is that someone who "has skill in a PC fps" really means they have skill with using a mouse in an FPS. If you did the reverse, take a fantastic console FPS player and put him into a PC game with a mouse and a keyboard, do you really think his "skill level" will help him? No, it won't because such a thing doesn't exist he's good with a controller, not a mouse. Stuff doesn't just mystically carry over like that.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, I realize that now, someone else posted such a video.

My experience with PC gaming has been either my horrid attempts or watching my friends, and they always seemed to get stuck on corners more than people did with consoles. I thought that was a common problem, I guess they just weren't very good.

And I've always felt the analog stick was more intuitive. It only took up one digit, and, you know, it's an "analog" for movement.

I was wrong, though.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. I'd agree Analogue stick IS more intuitive but considering how important aiming/looking-around is and how many games depend on a controllable camera position I'd still say a more intuitive mouse-look trumps overall.

I LOEV gaming on PC but I still play all the biggest console shooters. I find I can "feel" being in Killzone 2 or Halo 3, though looking around and aiming still feels as un-natural. It's like I am running around with real fleshy legs, feeling my way around over the rubble and steps, but my upper body is like The Terminator, slowly scanning and over-correcting.

See with an analogue stick for movement, even without haptic-feedback (rumble, which I hate anyway) I can "feel" my way around much better with an analogue stick, especially for first person where I usually can't see how my avatar is interacting with the environment, only how my progress is being impeded.

I really wish I could combine both setups, there are time when analogue movement is best (traversing rough ground, steering of vehicle on 2D plane (like a car) ) and times when analogue aim is best (aiming a sluggish automated tank/artillery gun, pitch of a vehicle in a 3D travel (plane, missile, spaceship) )

Particularly relevant for ID Software's upcoming RAGE, I hope I can easily switch between gamepad and mouse+KB for the alternating driving and on-foot shooting sections.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

... I am easily a better shot on First Person shooters of the Console variety then their computer counterparts.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Ok, we all know it's easier to use a mouse to put a cursor over your opponent than to use a controller. So, how does that make PC players better? It means they have an advantage over input methods, not skill. If all PC gamers were as skillfull as many seem to be making them out to be they should be as successful using any type of control method, why not test that out?

Take a group of PC only gamers and have them use a regular controller and let the console gamers use a mouse and keyboard-explain what how they work and let them get used to it for a half hour then start a match between them. My theory is that the PC gamers using a controller will be trounced and prove that it isn't skill that they have, but a rediculously easy way to aim.

This is a completely bogus claim. As with any UI, and a controller is a user interface, every person must go through a familiarization phase. Be it working a stove, opening a door, drinking from a cup or using a controller, every UI has a learning phase.

As an example, someone could be really familiar with driving a car. However, if instead of a steering wheel you put an Xbox 360 controller in the car do you really, really expect them to be able to drive as well? Of course not as they have not familiarized themselves with the UI. They could be the best race car driver in the world, but it wouldn't matter.

Furthermore, the switch from mouse to gamepad is a matter of switching device classifications. I don't know how much education you have in UI's, but the mouse is a clutched positioning device and a joystick is a relative positioning device - they're very different devices and generally, clutched positioning devices are more suited for precision.

Finally, then, all we can conclude is that someone who "has skill in a PC fps" really means they have skill with using a mouse in an FPS. If you did the reverse, take a fantastic console FPS player and put him into a PC game with a mouse and a keyboard, do you really think his "skill level" will help him? No, it won't because such a thing doesn't exist he's good with a controller, not a mouse. Stuff doesn't just mystically carry over like that.

That's what I said (just a little shorter). I was talking about the people that seem to think that because they win a game using a mouse, they are better gamers as a whole than those who use analog stick controllers and that somehow that makes them more skillfull than the console players.

I agree that the mouse/keyboard setup is easier to use for FPS games. It just seems to me that to be really good at one on a console takes more actual gaming skill than it does to be really good at it using the m/k setup because of the inherent flaws with a gamepad.

Besides all this is a theory (that hasn't been tested AFAIKO) coming from someone who has hated every FPS he has ever played (save the original Medal of Honor), so your milage may vary.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Yeah, I realize that now, someone else posted such a video.

My experience with PC gaming has been either my horrid attempts or watching my friends, and they always seemed to get stuck on corners more than people did with consoles. I thought that was a common problem, I guess they just weren't very good.

And I've always felt the analog stick was more intuitive. It only took up one digit, and, you know, it's an "analog" for movement.

I was wrong, though.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. I'd agree Analogue stick IS more intuitive but considering how important aiming/looking-around is and how many games depend on a controllable camera position I'd still say a more intuitive mouse-look trumps overall.

I LOEV gaming on PC but I still play all the biggest console shooters. I find I can "feel" being in Killzone 2 or Halo 3, though looking around and aiming still feels as un-natural. It's like I am running around with real fleshy legs, feeling my way around over the rubble and steps, but my upper body is like The Terminator, slowly scanning and over-correcting.

See with an analogue stick for movement, even without haptic-feedback (rumble, which I hate anyway) I can "feel" my way around much better with an analogue stick, especially for first person where I usually can't see how my avatar is interacting with the environment, only how my progress is being impeded.

I really wish I could combine both setups, there are time when analogue movement is best (traversing rough ground, steering of vehicle on 2D plane (like a car) ) and times when analogue aim is best (aiming a sluggish automated tank/artillery gun, pitch of a vehicle in a 3D travel (plane, missile, spaceship) )

Particularly relevant for ID Software's upcoming RAGE, I hope I can easily switch between gamepad and mouse+KB for the alternating driving and on-foot shooting sections.

I'm almost expecting everyone in this thread to suddenly face the camera and say: So that's why we use Dual FragSFX Pro[sup]TM[/sup] [http://www.splitfish.com/index.php/en/products/5-produkte/98-dual-sfx-frag-pro]!

Seriously though, the part I bolded is pretty much what I meant to say, but you said it better.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm almost expecting everyone in this thread to suddenly face the camera and say: So that's why we use Dual FragSFX Pro[sup]TM[/sup] [http://www.splitfish.com/index.php/en/products/5-produkte/98-dual-sfx-frag-pro]!

Seriously though, the part I bolded is pretty much what I meant to say, but you said it better.

Because that isn't a REAL mouse, not a mouse in the sense than PC users are familiar with. These things simply read the mouse input and try to figure out the analogue stick input that would give the same result but they are still under the same fundamental limitations of the analogue input. Plus these are buggy as all hell as no games is made with them in mind.

PS3 support USB mouse, the ideal solution is the GAME DEVELOPERS more universally allow support of plain-old USB-mouse with keyboard or even just use the left-side of the PS3-controller for movement n' stuff.

But virtually no develoeprs support that. It would be AWESOME if Sony did that for all their First Party games. But they don't get any money when you buy a third party USB-mouse, they are probably more likely to encourage support for Move controller.