What exactly is it about PC ports?!

[Las7]

HAH.

Rockstar = good ports.

Exactly they had horrible ports and actually put in the effort this time.
Warner didn't learn a single thing about porting until Valve refunds were in effect.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Of coarse MOST people wont prefer Origin over Steam or GoG. Does not mean SOME people wont buy it from there.
You dont even know how many PS4 versions were sold.
Because retail copies sold are tracked by activation. There is a number supplied. And there is a number sold. We know neither. Some of the GoG copies ARE retail copies. Of that I am certain.

I know more PS4 copies sold than Xbone and I know PC sales were basically 1/3 (a little less) of total sales. Thus, if PS4 and Xbone each sold the same, all 3 platforms would be equal. But PS4 sold more than Xbone, so by basic math, PS4 outsold PC.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/11/may-2015-npd-ps4-tops-console-sales-as-the-witcher-iii-has-strong-debut/

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yes. Basic math with incomplete PC data gets you that. I grant you that much

Poor fellas that play it on PS4. *Sigh*. Maybe after Redkit they will sell it and buy the real version.
Also, just wondering... do you like Witcher 3? I mean it is the center of most of your threads...

But with data you can't find, you have the PC version selling more. You seriously think Origin sales and unactivated retail sales will push the PC past PS4? Retail sales already account for very little of PC sales and I'd be extremely surprised if Origin sales (of non-EA games obviously) were even at 10% of all digital sales. Those numbers aren't going to push the PC version past PS4.

I'm grown to really like Witcher 3 after a very very slow start. There's a few things I don't like about it like having to slot/activate skills. And, I've found the boss fights to be absolutely horrid (worse than Deus Ex HR), they are so simplistic and boring, you usually die because Geralt rolls the wrong way or bad hit detection, what's worse is that bosses (so far) usually have some kind of heal only prolonging the simplistic and boring fight.

 

[kilenem]

Some game studios only care about the platforms they'll make the most money on. At least PC has a strong mod community, Wii U and handheld gets even worse ports.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yes. I do think that.

Though why do you never ask yourself where they make more money per copy? Hmmm...

Have no problems with bosses. Stop their healing with igni. Read the books then. And then play W1 and 2.

Even if those uncounted sales push the PC version past the PS4 version, just think about how close a single console's sales came beating the PC sales of a game with a very good PC history. Console gamers didn't get Witcher 1 and only 360 got Witcher 2. So a series that with a very strong PC user-base at best barely outsold a single console. What does that tell you about most other multiplatform games (Batman, Fallout, Deus Ex, COD, GTA, etc) that have much better grounding in the console platform? It means that the PC has no chance outselling a single console. That's why the console version is prioritized.

It depends on how much of a cut Valve/GOG take. PC still sold only 1/3 of consoles, thus consoles pulled in more revenue.

I don't have problems with bosses either, I said they were too SIMPLISTIC and boring, not that they were hard. I don't think you can stop that first Wild Hunt dude's healing that goes in the shield, all the healing does is make the fight longer and more boring. The quen and axii signs are so overpowered. One more thing I don't like about the game is that Geralt starts with like no skills, not only is he probably a Witcher in his prime but he's had 3 games of experience so it makes no sense to start out with just basest of skills. That's one of the reasons the game starts out so slow (I almost did give up on the game early on), you don't have much to do combat-wise until you get to about level 10 or so as not only do you have to get skills but slots to use the skills.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Not really unusual. Some of the poor console gamers used to be PC gamer (and vice versa too). And CPDR made a very clear push to market the game towards even newcomers...( which is bad, reading the books and playing the games makes W3 a lot better).

Valve takes a 30% cut. GoG is from CDPR. It takes nothing. Any sale from GoG gives CDPR full money.
Retail PC units, since they are GoG give CDPR around 60%. Retail Console copies give CDPR 40%...
Also, there is the fact that console gamers sometimes resell and get stuff second hand.

In other words... the PC version really did make them the most money overall.

Also, the consoles are two separate entities. They require separate teams in CDPR. Their own OS and overall different hardware. It is not a 2vs 1 as you make it out to be. It is a 1v1v1 comparison.

Geralt has been a Witcher for 70 years. Yes he should be more powerful at the start. His game version even lacks 1-2 spells from his book version.
That is how RPGs work though. No matter how badass you are you start small. Good thing about Geralt is that he keeps the badass act all the time. So it is natural.

The point is that the PC version will at best barely outsell the PS4 version (I'm not buying your guess that the those uncounted sold copies will push past the PS4). Thus, most other multiplatform games will easily sell more on a single console platform vs PC as most other titles have a lot more history/user-base on a console than The Witcher. You think Batman (even with a good PC port) would come close at all to PS4's sales? You gotta be nuts to think that. The point of this whole thread is why does the PC get bad ports and the answer is because other platforms sell more.

I'm pretty sure the Publisher/Developer gets more like 60% of retail console sales, not 40%. Maybe Witcher 3 will pull in a bit more revenue from PC sales but again, most other games will not. Again, that's why the PC gets the bad ports.

Just because that's how RPGs work doesn't mean that's how they should work. You can role-play as a master ninja and never even gain anything because you're a fucking master ninja. Role-playing has more to do with choice than it does with gaining combat abilities. It's pretty disappointing that you only have one skill in Witcher 3 that is actually used for role-playing. You can start a DnD campaign at max level and you're still role-playing; leveling is not a requisite for an RPG.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Developing for a console is a little easier than developing for PC. Consoles pretty well are guaranteed to have the same hardware, so its easier to optimize for those.
PC's range of hardware is vast, and therefore a little tougher to develop for and some companies are ill equipped to do so. So they farm out said port to a company that is supposed to be better equipped.
It comes down to the "Pick 2" scenario of fast, cheap, quality. Usually companies want things done fast and cheap, so quality suffers in the end and you get things like Arkham Knight.
Smarter companies learn from their mistakes, like Rockstar and GTA V vs. GTA IV.
They're not excuses, but they're reasons nonetheless.
And PC sales for some companies are harder to gauge. As I've heard in the last few years, digital sales are much harder to get numbers for than physical sales and less games released on PC are getting physical copies because its cheaper to put them up on digital distribution platforms.
Companies exist to profit, and they're going to try to maximize profit and eliminate cost. I've run a small business and even there overhead costs are insane enough to where you really have to find ways to cut costs and such to turn even the smallest profit. Its not easy for little guys, and the costs increase exponentially the bigger a company gets.
Again, quality should be a priority but sometimes projects get over budget and costs become a major concern so you have to start cutting.
Balancing those things doesn't always help the customer, and sometimes shit falls through the cracks.
Its how a company does damage control at times of crisis is really how one has to gauge whether or not said company is worth being a returning customer for. Nothing in life is perfect and sometimes the way we handle disaster shows worth better than getting things "right" every time. I'm of the mind that something that "never" fails is probably cutting corners somewhere else and disaster, when it strikes, is going to be worse.

 

[Aetrion]

Honestly, there is nothing overly difficult about creating good ports, I think it comes down to some calculation that says a barely good enough port makes more money than a good port.

With Skyrim they really just took a dump on PC players for example, and shipped the game with a UI that was full of bugs and awkward as hell to use with a mouse. You need mods to fix that to this day, but it didn't hurt their sales one bit.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

As I've heard in the last few years, digital sales are much harder to get numbers for than physical sales and less games released on PC are getting physical copies because its cheaper to put them up on digital distribution platforms.

Doesn't the publisher/develop know exactly how much the sell? I understand that the public doesn't have access to such data. I'd think if you put a game on Steam, you'd know exactly how many copies sold. And really the pub/dev are the only ones that need to know sales figures to decide what platforms to prioritize for future titles.

You are free to think the way you want to. I dont get how "it is more popularz! " is a good argument for one to be a console gamer (even if its untrue)... but hey, you are free to think that way. Whilst I await RedKit...

What is important here is what CDPR makes from the game. The game has many publishers depending on which continent or area of the world you are in (for all retail versions).
GoG gives them full. Steam gives them 70% (though in certain regions it is around 50 due to a publisher... fucking convoluted, still more than on consoles).
So it is not a bit more. 20-30% more is not a bit...

And overwhelm new games like you? You havent even read the books, nor played the previous games. Too many options usually can overwhelm gamers.
I know leveling is not a requisite for an RPG. I would prefer if all games were STALKER and had no levels, only equipment and player skill. But alas... that aint happening and is just my subjective thoughts...

You always change the argument around to something else when you know you lost. The discussion is why does the PC get bad ports, not why it's good to be a console gamer or PC gamer. If console gaming is more popular and more people playing on consoles, the PC version will get less priority, which equates to bad ports. If games were to sell more on PC, the consoles would get the shitty ports. This thread has nothing to do with whether is good to be a console gamer or PC gamer.

You again fail to provide proof of your 40% for console sales, which I argued was more like 60%. Not to mention by sales numbers that can be claimed as actual sales numbers, the PS4 version sold more copies. So if the PC version makes more money per copy, it's not automatic that the PC made the most revenue due to the PS4 version selling more. Even a game like The Witcher 3 struggles to outperform a single console on PC. The chances of games with a larger console user-base like COD, Batman, Tomb Raider, Fallout, etc. making more money on PC sales is laughable if even The Witcher 3 struggles to accomplish that feat. That's why PC gets shitty ports, less money from PC sales. Stay on point with the discussion.

Mass Effect 3 started you off with a ton of skill points, it worked and I'm sure there were new players to that game as well.

 

[Charli]

All consoles hardware are the same.

All PC's hardware is not.

That's it. That is the problem. Enjoy.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I change an argument when I realize that things are murky, subjective or I am fighting a brick wall. Not when I lose...

You still dont seem to realize that the PS4 and Xbox One are not one platform.
You did not even know that GoG belongs to CD Projekt Red...
Digital always gives more money per sale that retail. Always...

Never played ME3. I did read its plot though... most of it is decent. The rest (and towards the end) was absolute utter shit.
Cant know about it. I do know that ME1 annoyed me when I saw that Bioware cant design even a UI properly... that was disheartening...

I never said console gaming was better literally ever (yeah, better for ME) yet you switch the argument to that. Games sell less on PC (objective), thus the PC platform get less priority (objective). Nothing subjective there. You were just losing.

You still don't seem to realize I'm only using PS4 numbers...
If Witcher 3 makes more per copy on PC and PS4 outsells PC, it's not automatic that PC yielded more revenue. If Witcher 3 could barely make more revenue on PC than A SINGLE CONSOLE, what's the chances of other games with more of a console following/user-base ever making more revenue on PC sales? PC versions pull in less revenue thus the ports get less priority and resources.

Well, you can give players lots of skill points at the start and not overwhelm them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

All those games I listed with many of those game series originating on PC (like Witcher, Hitman, BF, Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, etc.) sold more on consoles....

I have a real hard time believing the part in bold there.
Barely anyone even knew that Deus Ex: The Conspiracy (the PS2 version) existed, very few people know about it even today. You're telling me that one of the most celebrated and respected PC games ever, one of the archtypes of good PC gaming, sold less on PC than on a PS2 port that barely anyone knows about?

It's hard to find sales numbers for most games, VGChartz does have both the PS3 and 360 version by themselves outselling the PC version (which I know can be argued but that's all I can find). Witcher 3's PC sales numbers do count pretty much all the digital & retail PC sales and if Witcher 3 is selling less on PC, what's the chances of other games selling more? Especially the new Deus Ex will be much more of a known brand console-wise with Mankind Divided.

No, but you are a die-hard PS fanboy . I dont switch to that, those are jabs mate...

About as informed as people saying that retail still is major on PC. You have incomplete data simply. So do I. In this case I cant win though I cant say I lose. So I talk about amount of money gained from each sale.

Then dont use "consoles". Use PS4.
PC Games do sell more overtime. That much is simply fact (compared to the casual and materialistic "fast food-esque" manner of thought console gamers have) .

Some people have problems even with using 5 spells and 2 swords and 1 crossbow in the beginning. Unfortunate... but true

Witcher 3's data is complete but missing Origin sales (not much) and unregistered physical copies (not much either), which I haven't seen a link to verifying that. I'd be really surprised if those 2 things that may have not been counted amounted to more than 10% of sales. That still doesn't beat the PS4 version. I still don't get why PC retail sales need to be activated to be counted as that should be counted via sales from the stores like console retail versions.

I've been using PS4 numbers alone the whole time, read my posts. I give you that "in the end", Witcher 3 may outsell PS4 on PC, but it would've been a struggle to do so. You think other games like Batman (even with good ports) even have a chance of outselling a single console platform? Also, there's lot of gamers that haven't moved onto current gen yet due to current gen sorta being stuck in 1st gear (all games available on last-gen plus all the remasters) and there hasn't until recently (with stuff like Witcher and Batman launching) been much of a reason to upgrade to current gen. Witcher 3 still didn't outsell PS4 when PS4 still has quite a bit of a user-base to grow.

The game automatically uses the right sword. There's really no point in having 2 swords, humans are weak and the silver monster sword would kill humans quite easily.

 

[TranshumanistG]

This point probably has already been raised, but consoles generally have set hardware configuration. This makes development easier not only because you know exactly for what spec range to develop for without making the experience especially different across the users, but you have to worry less about the game engine being compatible with various drivers(and a compatibility layer might add overhead) and user's gear missing some feature that you're using.

Don't mean to high-jack the thread, but since we're talking about bad PC ports, have there actually been any bad PC port by EA. If so, in what matter? I can't seem to find much on the Internet, googling "EA bad PC ports" mostly seems to bring up stuff on network port forwarding.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

VGchartz is kinda full of shit. It reports STALKER sales at 40 000. GSC Game World last reported (2012) 5 million for the entire franchise, and at least 2 for Shadow of Chernobyl.
40 000... and 2 million... a very big difference.
Problem is it cant track digital sales and has incomplete data from a few regions only.

There is no link to give you the number of Origin sales as they are not allowed to disclose them. As for that type of retail sales... I would have to go and check house by house to give you data
For what it is worth, I bought Witcher 3 three times. One for myself, one for my girl and one for a friend. Both my girl and I have it on GoG Galaxy. My other friend, however, uses it without it... which mystifies me greatly...
But that is not a big sample size.

Batman no. Then again I dont know much about it. Seems like a good franchise
Exactly since there is a drought of games on the new consoles, there is no internal competition. You see, the PS4 and XBONE still have no backwards compatibility and simply have few games. So Witcher 3 is a very big deal for PS4 gamers. On PC... for better or worse, the RPG genre is filled with high quality games. Some new, some old. So Witcher 3 actually has competition...

*There are ways to turn off using the right sword*
Also the game bugs sometimes and does not draw the right weapon. Uhm... no... there is a point to use the Steel sword... it is tougher.
By that logic just use it. I mean, it will kill monsters too. Just not quite as well as Silver swords.

As it should be BTW. It was so in the books. Logic dictates it to be so too.

VGChartz has nothing to do with the Witcher 3 sales data I've been referencing the whole time...

Give me a link saying Origin sales and unactivated retail copies were not included in the numbers I've been referencing, they don't even amount to much anyways even if they aren't included (which, again, you can't prove).

And, again, if Witcher 3 has problems outselling a single console on PC, what's the chances of most other multiplatform releases having the PC version outsell a single console? You keep failing to answer that question because you know if you do answer it, it just proves you wrong.

You keep switching the argument. Now it's PS4 has no competition. There's not many RPGs that offer a similar experience to Witcher 3 on console or PC. Everybody already played Skyrim that wanted to and Witcher 3 beat Skyrim at it's own game. There's DA:I, which is competition (on both PC and PS4). Are you trying to say something like Pillars of Eternity is competition for Witcher 3? Because those games are very different. Lastly, PS4 still has lots of gamers that will buy the system but haven't yet, the user-base is still has room for plenty of growth and there's still lots of PS4 sales potential for Witcher 3 due to that.

How are humans strong against a silver sword? I actually tried using a silver sword against humans on purpose and it does shit damage, it makes no sense. I can buy monsters being vulnerable to silver but not humans being strong to silver (humans are weak to just about anything). Even Yahtzee pointed that stupidity out in his review of the 1st or 2nd game. It's not like it detracts from the game much, it's just something that makes no sense.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

PS3 and 360 version? You seem to be a little confused.
You can download a digital version of Deus Ex: The Conspiracy on the PSN, but you cannot get the game on 360 and there's never been a publication of the PSN sales (or even the original PS2 version) of the game. Are you talking about Deus Ex: Human Revolution? Because the titles of the two aren't interchangeable.

When I was saying Deus Ex sells more on consoles I meant Human Revolution, not the 1st game. I'm talking about recent games, not games over a decade old. I said games series that have their roots in PC gaming (like Deus Ex, Hitman, BF, etc.) NOW sell more on consoles even (not their original entries). If those series sell more on a single console, there's like no chance of other games selling more on PC. The console versions simply sell more, which is why the PC gets shitty ports (the question the TC posed to everyone).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

They are not mentioned. That is why. Else Origin (at least) would be mentioned.

Because I dont know them numbers. Not even the money itself. I do know the numbers of a few things, but including the AAAA games here is nonsensical.
Even if you were to be 100% correct (and a console gamer cant be), that simply brings another question - are developers really so mentally retarded and utterly moronic that they will piss off 20-30% of their revenue, the only platform that will make their game immortal like a real work of art and will guarentee them better long term sales...
Too much stupidity really. And hate against money.
And again, impossible. Under equal sales, PC versions give devs more money per sale on average.

Yes my friend, the PS4 has few games at all. And no old games. From what I can see, Skyrim is AS played as the Witcher 3 right now, due to the mods mostly. People have not had their fill (not that a console gamer would understand ).
https://steamdb.info/app/292030/
https://steamdb.info/app/72850/

So it STILL is an actual competitor.
BTW, Witcher arguably has more in common with Pillars than Skyrim...

Yahtzee is not the paragon of a good or attentive gamer .
Silver is a bad combat material. It will not do well when it meats Iron or Steel.

I also said that Steel Swords are TOUGHER as in they are more durable.
Try killing stuff with steel BTW. not hard either. As it should be.

The article says "613,000 PC gamers have chosen a different PC platform" other than GOG. Origin sales may or may not have been included.

Nobody cares about long-term, that's why we all are pretty much fucked now.

Again, the reason why PC gamers get shafted is because a single console platform outsells the PC for most games. Even when a game like Witcher 3 releases (with a well-known PC dev and strong PC fanbase), the game still sells more on a single console. You've had yet an argument against that point.

Yeah, I wouldn't understand how people still haven't had their fill of a shitty game (mods or not). Witcher may have more in common with Pillars than Skyrim, not like it matters much as Pillars is still way different. Pillars is old-school like Divinity OS.

PS4 has competition with PS3 (and other consoles). I've played my PS3 more in the 1st year I've had my PS4 than my PS4. I can still play old games too.

I never assumed the sword would be made entirely of silver, that would be pretty stupid.

To expand on your point, there's this thing called Mohs scale of mineral hardness that categorizes mineral hardness based on their ability to scratch other materials from 1 to 10, with diamonds at 10 as the hardest substance. This scale is also paired with a second scale that measures absolute hardness using a sclerometer, with minerals at a 1 in the Mohs scale scoring a 1 in absolute hardness, with diamonds at the top of the Mohs scale scoring an absolute hardness of 1600.

Just plain old shitty untempered steel scores between 4 and 4.5, giving it an absolute hardness of about 21 to 30ish.

Hardened steel, however scores betweem 7.5 and 8 on the Mohs scale, with an absolute hardness of about 150 to 200.

Silver scores between 2.5 and 3, with absolute hardness between 5 and 9. Even untempered steel is 2 to 4 times as hard as silver. Now, it's important for a sword to have some softness to prevent the blade from just shattering on impact, but a sword as soft as silver would very rapidly become dull and broken. It's a very shitty material for a blade unless you're fighting a foe that's specifically weak to it. It also helps that most Witcher monsters are fleshy, unarmored beasts with no weapons, so the silver blade probably wouldn't dull as fast as it would against a human soldier.

Just one note to Phoenix: Stop trying to reply to me. I have you blocked for a reason.

Why would you make the entire sword out of silver?

 

[kingthrall]

Consoles will never be able to put real time stratergy games like starcraft on. Its a pc exclusive and there should be more rts games rather than portable games that the pc gets always shafted in.

Honestly there is no other answer except for pure lazyness on the developers side not doing enough research on their part.
You can claim less sales ect; but it boils down to not giving a damn about their game.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

The big issue is Operating Systems. I assume your computer is capable of running Fallout 2. Hell, your phone is probably capable. I also assume you have at least Windows 7 or the equivalent version of Apple's OS. Or possibly Linux. Maybe.

Anyway, I double dare you to try running Fallout 2 with one of those Operating Systems. It can't be done. You get weird rainbow pixelation all over your screen making it nearly impossible to read or figure out where objects are. Even if you get a propper Vista compatibility mode you'll get issues. Better to dual boot Vista if you can.

Hell, I need to download an emulator to run Daggerfall. I need to emulate PC games on my PC!

So not only do you have to take a product from one operating system and fix it to another, you have to deal with a whole new myriad of glitches that can and will rear their ugly heads at you from being on a new OS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The swords are made from a steel core + Silver top part. Still, that top part is what cuts. So it gets dull if you use it against armored men. Geralt is no idiot, it wont do.

Treat mods as a separate entity from the game and that will help you explain some of the appeal. You like terrible games too, I do not judge( much).
Pillars, Witcher 1,2 , Wasteland, TES shit, Fallout, ME... all of those are on PC and STILL sell. Witcher 3 ACTUALLY has competition in the RPG genre. People BUY old and cheap and proven games. Thank God for that, some still respect gaming's legacy.
*Also, Witcher is known to be "old-school" too.
*People cant tell the difference between Starcraft and Men of War, dont give them so much credit.

The PS3 is not exactly real competition. It is simple an inferior console with pathetic hardware, that barely runs even old games. It is SOME competition, I give you that much.

Well YOU should care long term. I do. I always do. If the rest of the people want to eat dirt, why should I be like them?

How much less do you really think sharpened silver atop steel cuts compared to all steel? Humans are very weak creatures.

TES, Fallout, and ME are all on PS3/360 and are still played and sell as well. You act like a person that has a PS4 only plays a PS4. PC games are competition too, I have Divinity and Shadowrun Dragonfall, neither take much of a PC to play. It doesn't take much hardware to play great game games. You prioritize hardware way too much.

Witcher isn't very old-school just in mechanics alone, how many old-school RPGs have action-based combat like Witcher 3, very few if any. Witcher 3 even has health regen.

I do care about long-term but it doesn't matter because everyone in positions of power (or enough money) only think short-term.

And, again, you still have no proof whatsoever saying Witcher 3 sold most on PC or that Origin sales weren't included in the article or unactivated retail copies. If one of PCs best RPGs can't sell the most on its own platform, what chance do most other games? That's why pubs/devs don't care about the PC, which is the whole point of the thread. All you do is change the argument to something else when you're proven wrong.

 

[joest01]

Isn't it pretty obvious that developing for an open platform is more complex than a closed, tightly controlled system?

If developers only used generic frameworks that can generate code across platforms there would probably not be much of an issue. But of course they will do some specific tuning for each console's hardware. Easy enough. It's one command set per console.

On PC they get to do the tuning for intel, AMD, nvidia, ATI and also make sure that generic windows and directX hard or soft acceleration work too.

Then test it across a representative range at different settings etc.

Without knowing much about game development, but understanding a little bit about dev projects in general, it would be much much harder to QA the PC side. And of course more expensive.