Why are developers turning away from the PC?

[Wargamer]

From my point of view, PCs aren't built for gaming.

That is, they aren't built for NORMAL gaming. If you're an obsessive-compulsive douchebag who has his joystick, mouse and keyboard custom-built to the EXACT specifications of his hand and has 20K to blow on a super-computer, then PC gaming is most definitely the way to go.

If, on the other hand, you are NOT said douchebag, said douchebag will ruin your day. Because you're running a standard, non-overclocked computer that also gets used for storing your 30 gigs of iTunes, your holiday photos, your university coursework and the eighteen thousand porno images you think your parents don't know about, then you can't compete.


The requirements to compete on equal terms in Console gaming are as follows:

> Have a half-decent internet connection.
> Be better than the other guy.

When I go on Metal Gear Online, I don't slaughter everyone because I overclocked by PS3, or have some fancy Intel Outside 2849000lol driver that can download every episode of the Simpsons ever made in two minutes flat. I win (when I do win) because I'm better at the game than the other guy. It comes down to skill, and a bit of luck as well. It's fair.



And that's without bringing up EA's inspiring methods of alienating the fanbase.

Don't get me wrong, I do love playing Rome: Total War. I'd also love to play Medieval II: Total War, except it was a steaming pile of Lag and I couldn't run it. If it were a PS3 game, that would not have happened.

 

[Wargamer]

5. Support, No need to support a console game, once its on the disc, you're essentially locked down. No need to offer patches or bug fixes, if they don't like it, they just need to wait for the sequel. No need to offer forums, helplines, dev kits, etc. No need to provide any form of community.

I want to correct this - with the new generation of consoles (or at least the PS3; I really wouldn't be shocked if this didn't happen on the 360) patches do take place. The ones I know of include Metal Gear Online (received a bugfix some months ago) and Mercenaries 2 (ditto - minor bug-fixes).

Since the PS3 does work rather like a PC in that you "install" the game rather than running it straight off the disk, it can be patched much like a PC can. It's also clear from places like the Mercs 2 forum that console gamers DO expect patches to fix bugs and so on - at least, they do now the gaming companies have the ability to do so.

 

[Danny Ocean]

3. Consoles, easier to program for. Ok, stop typing, sure they're harder to program for originally, but once they're used to it, they're writing it for the PS3 and 360 in the main. Not 4000 different PC specs.

I don't think that's how it works. This is just my hashed knowledge of it, but I'm pretty sure that DirectX/Open GL act as the 'middlemen' between the hardware and the software, instead of it being.

Graphics Card A-45634 @ 2ghz effective
Graphics Card A1-1367 @ 0.1ghz
Graphics Card D4-000123 @ 1.2 ghz
etc..

It becomes

Graphics card fast
Graphics card slow
Graphics card medium

... I think. When they say they need to cater for different specs, they mean different levels of system, not exact specificiations.

Anyway:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/steam-reaches-1.html

Hooray for Steam!

Shameless punt, I know:
Misconceptions about PC gaming. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.67044?page=1]

It's a tad out of date though, I'll fix it eventually. Damn i7 cores screw it all up.

*snip*

First of all, don't make assumptions about things you don't know about.
Now I think we both know that's not true. The only possible difference hardware could make when you're playing a game is if you are playing it above the settings appropriate for your set-up, in which case it would slow you down.
Just because someone is playing on High detail doesn't mean they see more, it's just what they see is more detailed.
Except in the Crytec games, where it's actually harder for them to see stuff through the millions of bushes that pop up as you crank up the graphics. Or in the battlefield games where cranking up the detail means that explosions make more smoke, so it's harder to see.
In fact I think the only situation it may give an advantage in is when you increase your draw distance, but most games have that fixed for fairness.

Skillful edit, by the way.

 

[Woe Is You]

That is, they aren't built for NORMAL gaming. If you're an obsessive-compulsive douchebag who has his joystick, mouse and keyboard custom-built to the EXACT specifications of his hand and has 20K to blow on a super-computer, then PC gaming is most definitely the way to go.

These sorts of comments really don't help your case, considering it's really just as easy to come up with an equally exaggerated stereotype for your average console gamer. Especially since you aren't adding anything to the conversation with that.

Since Crysis seems to be brought up here, I'm finding it very interesting that the comments seem to be around the lines of "I can't run Crysis, so I'll forget that there are plenty of other games that I can run" and then the same folks seem to be complaining how the game sucks without even having played it (for more than the 5 minutes they tried at a friend's house). If it sucks so much, then why do you even care about not being able to run it?

As for developers turning away from the PC...as long as the PC is an open platform, there'll be PC games. It's as simple as that, really. I wouldn't even mind if PC games stopped selling in retail, since I haven't bought them that route for a smidgen over a year now.

 

[Wargamer]

Alright, let's go by example.

Of all the PC games I've owned, only two ever ran perfectly - Red Alert, and Small Soldiers.

Most had minor problems one way or another, such as Ascendancy having sound issues on occasion, or when Mechwarrior 2 - Mercenaries froze and crashed when you beat a certain level for no explainable reason (yet consistently - every time the same place and in the same way). Some games caused the whole computer to slow down and thus were removed. Some games were just royally fucked and had to be removed because they were totally unplayable. All bar one should, in theory, have run flawlessly (Dark Forces II was the one game I didn't meet the system requirements for).


And all of this really adds up to PC gamers being for obsessives - I've never bought a computer SPECIFICALLY for gaming. Why should I? I didn't buy it JUST to download music of iTunes, or JUST to make excel spreadsheets. I expect a PC to be able to do a bit of everything, and that includes playing games.

This is why consoles are so much better - you buy it, it does everything. Best of all, it has a very clear transition point. You have a PSX, PS2 or PS3. There's no "PSX with v4.01 Cellshade Graphix Card and DirectX 7.2" Consoles are an all-in entertainment system. PCs do a lot more, yes, but even when I've had just two games on a computer I've had issues with one of them. The PS3 runs everything on it regardless of whether I've got no games installed or thirty. PCs don't seem to have been built on that basis.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Alright, let's go by example.
Of all the PC games I've owned, only two ever ran perfectly - Red Alert, and Small Soldiers.

Those are two old games, how old is your PC?

Most had minor problems one way or another, such as Ascendancy having sound issues on occasion, or when Mechwarrior 2 - Mercenaries froze and crashed when you beat a certain level for no explainable reason (yet consistently - every time the same place and in the same way). Some games caused the whole computer to slow down and thus were removed. Some games were just royally fucked and had to be removed because they were totally unplayable. All bar one should, in theory, have run flawlessly (Dark Forces II was the one game I didn't meet the system requirements for).

That isn't the PC, it sounds like it's poor games. I had that problem too with old games when I first got into it. Simply because hardware and software weren't as good back then. You think console games never crash or are bug free?

And all of this really adds up to PC gamers being for obsessives - I've never bought a computer SPECIFICALLY for gaming. Why should I? I didn't buy it JUST to download music of iTunes, or JUST to make excel spreadsheets. I expect a PC to be able to do a bit of everything, and that includes playing games.

There are thousands of flash games on the web, and hundreds of good, 3D browser games (I believe the escapist did an article on one of them earlier this year). Even then, using the examples you just stated (red alert and SS), you PC can do a little bit of playing games.

This is why consoles are so much better - you buy it, it does everything. Best of all, it has a very clear transition point. You have a PSX, PS2 or PS3. There's no "PSX with v4.01 Cellshade Graphix Card and DirectX 7.2" Consoles are an all-in entertainment system. PCs do a lot more, yes, but even when I've had just two games on a computer I've had issues with one of them. The PS3 runs everything on it regardless of whether I've got no games installed or thirty. PCs don't seem to have been built on that basis.

First, Eh?

Second. I think you are one of those people who get all the press when it comes to PC gaming. You don't seem to know about it. It's not like consoles, where there's just one box that can do 3 things. With the versatility that a modular system like a PC brings, it also brings a rise in complexity.
I don't see how the number of games installed would affect the reliability of any single one of them. That's not how it works on PC, is that what the PS3 does? (Seriously, I don't know, this isn't baiting.)

Anyway. Expecting a generalist (and in your case low-level) PC to be as good at games as a top-end games console is ridiculous if you're not prepared to invest the same money into the PC to make it game worthy.

You could have invested the £500 that a PS3 costed when it came out, in which case you PC would easily be playing the latest games (Unless it is really, really old.). Even the £300 a newer one costs is enough for a top-end graphics card.

That's how a PC works. You want to surf the web and nothing else? Save money on a disk drive and large hard drive.
You want to game? Buy a graphics card.
Want to watch blu-ray? Buy a Blu-ray drive.

Finally, there is one thing a PC has that is really quite useful. I think it would help you out a lot with all your problems: Free Tech Support.



Out of curiosity, what is your system spec? I'd honestly like to help you with this. I really hope this post doesn't offend, I'm just typing the way I speak.

 

[Wargamer]

Alright, let's go by example.
Of all the PC games I've owned, only two ever ran perfectly - Red Alert, and Small Soldiers.

Those are two old games, how old is your PC?

That particular PC is long gone, unfortunately.

That isn't the PC, it sounds like it's poor games. I had that problem too with old games when I first got into it. Simply because hardware and software weren't as good back then. You think console games never crash or are bug free?

I think it's always easy to work out why there's a problem. There aren't many games on console where I don't know what's wrong; most of my PS2 games won't run because the PS2 itself is the 1st generation model, and so the disk reader is shot to hell. Console Games are easy to diagnose - half the time with a PC there's no explanation for what goes wrong.

Second. I think you are one of those people who get all the press when it comes to PC gaming. You don't seem to know about it. It's not like consoles, where there's just one box that can do 3 things. With the versatility that a modular system like a PC brings, it also brings a rise in complexity.
I don't see how the number of games installed would affect the reliability of any single one of them. That's not how it works on PC, is that what the PS3 does? (Seriously, I don't know, this isn't baiting.)

It definitely happens. I've actually seen it on a friend's computer, one he owns for pretty much nothing but gaming. When he had all of the games installed, they all ran slow. When he took half off, the others ran fine.

Out of curiosity, what is your system spec? I'd honestly like to help you with this. I really hope this post doesn't offend, I'm just typing the way I speak.

I've pretty much abandoned PC gaming these days, so the problems are entirely past-tense. Now all I need my PC to do gaming wise is run Rome: Total War and flash games. Since PC gaming seems to be increasingly getting fucked over (EA's attempt to install viruses on our systems, and companies like Pandemic not providing patches to PCs yet giving them to console versions of the same game) I see no reason to go back to PC gaming.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

I, quite frankly, am in no position to buy into PC gaming. I have a good reason for this, to protect me from the vigilant eyes of Eggo.

I am currently typing this on a laptop. I need to have a laptop. The people I live with like using it around the house, so the portability is an important factor. This is especially true when you consider I am going to university in about a year and a half, so a conventional computer really wouldn't be any good.

And people who know what they're talking about have said in previous threads that gaming laptops are a joke. And since I am stuck with a laptop, I really can't become a PC gamer.

You can be a PC gamer, just don't expect to be able to play all the latest games on the max. settings. This is why I bring a selection of the games I've collected over the years but not had a chance to finish with me to university. Remember that you are not a true gamer until you have played the classics.

I do have some games for my laptop which I play; for example, Dawn of War, Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, Evil Genius, Red Alert 2 and Age of Empires 2. My point is, my inability to play current generation games using what I have available is what prevents me considering myself primarily a PC gamer.

Although I am quite annoyed that you suggested that I'm not a true gamer. As for classics, I've played quite a few on a particularly old computer that now lives in my loft. These include Elite, the first ever proper 3D game, Head over Heels, released in 1987, and the original Paperboy.

 

[Lukeje]

I, quite frankly, am in no position to buy into PC gaming. I have a good reason for this, to protect me from the vigilant eyes of Eggo.

I am currently typing this on a laptop. I need to have a laptop. The people I live with like using it around the house, so the portability is an important factor. This is especially true when you consider I am going to university in about a year and a half, so a conventional computer really wouldn't be any good.

And people who know what they're talking about have said in previous threads that gaming laptops are a joke. And since I am stuck with a laptop, I really can't become a PC gamer.

You can be a PC gamer, just don't expect to be able to play all the latest games on the max. settings. This is why I bring a selection of the games I've collected over the years but not had a chance to finish with me to university. Remember that you are not a true gamer until you have played the classics.

I do have some games for my laptop which I play; for example, Dawn of War, Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, Evil Genius, Red Alert 2 and Age of Empires 2. My point is, my inability to play current generation games using what I have available is what prevents me considering myself primarily a PC gamer.

Although I am quite annoyed that you suggested that I'm not a true gamer. As for classics, I've played quite a few on a particularly old computer that now lives in my loft. These include Elite, the first ever proper 3D game, Head over Heels, released in 1987, and the original Paperboy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't a true gamer; it was a shot at anyone who would try to say that you weren't a true gamer because you are unable to play the latest games.

 

[Lukeje]

I'm in my fourth year at my university and have moved with every year...I still have a massive computer which I also use for gaming :\

I'm not the only one either.

And it's not like you're forced to get a massive supertower like I did to play games; one of my professors just built a ridiculous gaming system with this case:

http://www.antec.com/usa/productDetails.php?lan=us&id=15300

Yet still not particularly apt to take to the library...

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Although I am quite annoyed that you suggested that I'm not a true gamer. As for classics, I've played quite a few on a particularly old computer that now lives in my loft. These include Elite, the first ever proper 3D game, Head over Heels, released in 1987, and the original Paperboy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't a true gamer; it was a shot at anyone who would try to say that you weren't a true gamer because you are unable to play the latest games.

Don't worry, I over reacted.

I'm in my fourth year at my university and have moved with every year...I still have a massive computer which I also use for gaming :\

I'm not the only one either.

And it's not like you're forced to get a massive supertower like I did to play games; one of my professors just built a ridiculous gaming system with this case:

http://www.antec.com/usa/productDetails.php?lan=us&id=15300

Good for you, but quite frankly I've looked at student accomodation and based on what I've seen there is no way I could have a proper PC and still have room on my desk unless I got really lucky. Also I'd quite like the ability to take it to lectures, the library and so on.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Then get a netbook as well! A gaming PC and a netbook will cost you less than the typical laptop most clueless freshmen take to college.

Or I could just use the laptop I have right now, which is cheaper than just about anything on account of being free.

 

[Rankao]

Well I finally broke down and got a console, but I still can't really enjoy it like an enjoy pc games. It might be because I use jointly used TV or it might be that I feel more immersed into PC smaller monitor.

I have seen the crap PC gamers are getting from developers. Eventually console gamers will start seeing DMR (To fight the evils of used games) and they will for the most part be in the same boat as the pc gamers. Betrayed.

This is to you PC Gaming company!

I am sorry that people would rather spend money on a dime bag then on a PC Game. I am sorry that you don't realize that making online content the central focus of your game will effectively minimize piracy (You got to be smart and make it difficult to run pirate Dedicated Servers).

I am sorry that people will copy their floppy disk and share your hard worked on 16bit games between friends and then copy the code pages from your books... wait that was 10 years ago sorry, you fixed that problem. . .

 

[Artheval_Pe]

feel that most strategy and MMO's are still PC based, with a few exceptions, and until game companies discover a way to release a functional and fun strategy game on consoles that actually works well then the PC will always remain the strongest platform for those genres.

It seems however that the recent Endwar had a pretty unique take on console RTS, was adapted to console controls, and was still compelling.

And please don't start with the PC vs Consoles debate, as developpers can very well work for all the platforms and perform well in sales with PC exclusives (Remember Starcraft : 9 million units sold, or the first Half Life : 8 million units). The problem is that as the console market was growing, despite the fact that the total number of computers available was also increasing, it seems that the PC Gaming market is gone, judging on the sales of recent games. Some games go above the 1 million mark as PC-Exclusives, but I don't remember a PC exclusive game, going above 5 millions in recent years, except for World of Warcraft and The Sims.

So, I think that the answer is very simple : PC Games don't sell well anymore.
Why people stopped buying PC games is an open question, especially as there are far more PCs suitable for gaming than consoles. But from a developper standpoint, it makes sense.

It that's sad for us PC gamers...

 

[Greyhawk]

And the dead horse is flayed skinless...

Developers are moving towards consoles for one simple reason: MONEY.
They look at the Xbox360 and the PS3 and see a greater chance of profit, both from the increased difficulty of piracy and the socio-economic reality of their core demographics, which for most AAA developers is the male 18-34 bracket.

For example, let us say the average 25 year old gamer has between $300.00 and $750.00 American to spend on his/her gaming entertainments. That gamer is going to look at the options and try to get the most value for the money. Now I know that it is possible to make a good gaming rig for $750.00, but the gamer has to consider how much money will be left to buy the games he/she wants to play. Developers are going to run the above scenario through their heads and realize that our frugal gamer is more likely to invest in a console, especially considering the current economic downturn most are dealing with. With that in mind, can we really fault developers for focusing their attention on the console market?

 

[Artheval_Pe]

Developers are going to run the above scenario through their heads and realize that our frugal gamer is more likely to invest in a console,

I don't know how you do the maths, but even if a console is fairly cheeper than a gaming rig, there are two other points to consider :
-Console games are actually more expensive than PC Games, at least where I live.
(To the point that it gets laughable, I've recently seen Fallout 3 boxes in a store. PC version : 50? vs Xbox 360 version : 70?.)
-An HDTV Screen alone is way more expansive than a decent gaming rig.

So it's cheaper to play on the PC, especially with all the mods that add great replay value to your games. But PC users tend to stop buying games, strangely...

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I don't think piracy has anything to do with it. That is a symptom of the problem for PCs, not the cause of it. The problem is that game developers are idiots. It is that simple.

Firstly - almost everyone with a PC has an internet connection. Developers have been using this feature increasingly to release games that are only half finished. Games these days are coming with masses and masses of bugs, many of them breaking the entire game. Now that consoles have hard drives and a lot have internet, developers are getting lazy about console games too.

Secondly - game developers with extremely limited intelligence. If you make a game (like Crysis or Fallout) that can only run on the top 10% of PCs the game will die. I have got a duo core E6600 processor, an 8800 GTS graphics card, with 2GB of RAM. This, when I got it about a year and a half ago, was pretty top notch. Overall my PC system cost me around £600 (thats well over $1000 USD).

A year and a half later? For Fallout 3 I am below [http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest] the recommended system requirements. My Xbox360, a machine released three years ago and costing one third of my PC, is still in it's prime with games coming out week in, week out, that run properly and I don't need to go buying more upgrades for.

I hate to go on a tangent for a second but in every console vs PC thread I ever see the PC afficianadoes always say that PCs have better graphics. They don't. Your PC has better graphics. My PC has worse graphics. I simply don't have the inclination, the time, or the cash to buy the latest and the greatest every time Cliffy B decides he wants to include bigger explosions in a game.

If go to a big city, New York or London, look out over all of those buildings... there are literally millions of PCs out there but merely thousands of consoles. A good PC game, one without vicious anti-piracy malware, which would run on all of those PCs without creating issues, would sell magnificently. One that is broken, needs urgent patching, needs you to update 10 different drivers, uninstall daemontools and nero, clean your registry, then buy a new graphics card, won't sell more than a few hundred.

And which kind of game are developers making?

This is why I firmly believe that games developers either:-

1. Secretly hate us.

2. Are complete idiots.

 

[Danny Ocean]

*snip*

Thanks for responding so sincerely to what I thought ended up as a quite flamey post. I'll stop trying to persuade you now

 

[clarinetJWD]

On the topic of game sales: Yes it is a fact that cross platform titles sell better on consoles these days than PCs, but it is not because PC gamers are a dying breed. It's a matter of economics.

Console games cost $60-70 as new releases, while PC games cost $40-50. Therefore developers have taken to releasing for the colsoles a couple months ahead of the PC to maximize sales on the more expensive platforms.

Because most PC gamers have a console or at least have access to one, those who like to play new games are likely to pick them up at their earliest availability, rather than wait for the PC versions.

 

[Wargamer]

Someone mentioned about Laptops, I think that's a really good area to look at.

A lot of people want or need a computer they can carry around. University is a good example. Laptops are rarely great for gaming. I sure as hell wouldn't attempt an FPS on a Laptop, but they run Dawn of War just fine.


The problem I see is that, once again, it's about hardware. It doesn't matter if you bought a First Generation PS2, or the last one ever built, they will both run EVERY GAME released for the PS2. I could go out and buy a Laptop tomorrow, but there's no guarantee it won't be obsolete (from a gaming perspective) in six months time. It'll probably be obsolete before I open the box.

The PS3 is now £300. The 360 is much cheaper. We should have at least five years of gaming left in these consoles - five more years where they will run every release as perfectly as they do all modern games.

How many PCs can make that claim? Buy a £300 PC, even a £300 GAMING PC, and you won't have it in 12 months time.