What exactly is it about PC ports?!

[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.

 

[baddude1337]

Too me, Arkham Knight has showed it's pretty much because publishers could get away with shoddy PC ports. Without the refund policy they could shit out any old rubbish port and people will still buy it and unable to do anything about it. Just look at Ubisoft and their historically awful PC ports that have been going on for YEARS. Now with a no questions asked refund policy publishers and developers are starting to realise they can't spend as little as possibly on a PC port development and expect to earn loads of no backsies money.

What makes all this worse to me though is that the PC RRP has gotten significantly higher (it's £60 here in the UK for PC AAA games now, almost double what it was last gen) despite the fact the ports have gotten even worse. Why should we be paying more when publishers aren't even bothering to give us proper ports?

Hopefully the Arkham Knight fiasco has shown the usual bad publishers they need to actually put some effort into their PC ports.

There are some quality PC ports though. Special mention to Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes which runs fantastically even on dated hardware. Same with GTA 5 with it's full fledged video settings that can scale it for pretty much anything. Why can't all developers make ports like that?

 

[Las7]

Two sources, requesting anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their careers, spoke with Kotaku over the past week in hopes of explaining how the broken PC version of Arkham Knight made it out the door. They both said that Warner Bros. was aware of the many issues facing Arkham Knight on PC and that the publisher chose to ship the game regardless, not to maniacally screw over customers?but because they believed it was good enough.

Warner Bros. did not return my multiple requests for comment.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The point is NOT how well it cuts humans. The point is how well it does AGAINST ARMOR. Of ANY kind. And how long it will survive.

Humans are usually armed and armored. Same way it is in STALKER really. Mutants have more HP than humans, but since they have little to none armor valuse, wasting AP ammo on them is not going to help you. It will against humans though.

Lets be honest, what sells the most long term? I mean I am sure some people still play them on those consoles. But truth is now they are most played on PC. Especially Bethesda games.
You think Witcher 3 requires much to play? My ATI HD 5770 is enough...

That is how it was marketed. I dont see it as old school. It is in a class of its own.

I dont bring it up since I dont have proof of anything, just informed and logical opinions. Now it is a fact that a PC sale = more money than a console sale. Of that I am certain.

My point has always been that (some) Western or Japanese devs are mostly lazy idiots that cant code worth a damn and are a failure to their art form. But that is not a point some people like being brought up. That is the reason, combined with going faster and faster just to chug out a game and get the money.

If you care long term, why are you a console gamer? Also, obviously not people in a position of power thing only short term you know...

The armor the humans have is meant to protect against steel anyways. A steel sword coated in silver isn't much different than a steel sword.

Bethesda games might be played longer on PC but I don't think Skyrim sold most on PC. Plus, lots of people buy GOTY editions on console too, it's not like everyone buys it in the 1st month and that's it on a console either. A PC game sale may equal more money (I'll give you that as I don't feel like looking it up) but a console version will sell more and bring in more revenue (due to selling more).

I bet PS4 Witcher 3 looks better vs your PC.

Witcher 3 still sold more on a single console with probably not even half its user-base as lots of people haven't bought a PS4/Xbone yet. You think most other games even stand a chance of making more money on PC even if the PC version makes more money per copy? That's why the console is prioritized and it's something you have yet to disprove at all.

I care about how much time I spend gaming during my gaming time. I console game because I can game more vs if I PC gamed.