You would need a legitimate reason to not want more money. If a game was coming on the 360 and PC, people would be questioning why it's not on the PS3, when it's mostly really just contractual.Curtmiester said:
Why so console, son?
- Thread starter PsykoDragon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
PC's are harder to develop for because of the varying specs people have. It's not the same to say "we're going to develop for Dell PC's" in the same way it is to say "we're going to develop for the 360". PC's are so varied in capability, etc. most developers can't be bothered.
And technically the PC isn't an official gaming platform if you see what I mean, so no company can pay for exclusives in the same way they can for the consoles (maybe Microsoft can because of Windows, I'm not sure).
It does seem to go in waves though, a few years ago I was seriously concerned as PC's were being shunned, now it seems to developers are looking into exploring the more powerful capabilities of PC's and including better graphical options, etc. that the consoles can't offer (ie. they're not porting crappy versions of games to PC for a quick buck as much any more).
And technically the PC isn't an official gaming platform if you see what I mean, so no company can pay for exclusives in the same way they can for the consoles (maybe Microsoft can because of Windows, I'm not sure).
It does seem to go in waves though, a few years ago I was seriously concerned as PC's were being shunned, now it seems to developers are looking into exploring the more powerful capabilities of PC's and including better graphical options, etc. that the consoles can't offer (ie. they're not porting crappy versions of games to PC for a quick buck as much any more).
Not a direct answer to the question but, my TV is a hell of a lot bigger than my computer screen. I'd rather have a game on my 32" TV than a 17" screen.
But with HDTV's having VGA inputs and computer monitors now regularly available in sizes well above 20", this is not a viable argument anymore.
But with HDTV's having VGA inputs and computer monitors now regularly available in sizes well above 20", this is not a viable argument anymore.
The 3 main things you need to play a game on the PC are a video card, a processor, and RAM. Just those 3 alone exceed the price of the PS3 if you buy the ones that will actually last. Before the gaming boom, the price difference used to be much, MUCH more, and that was for games with shittier graphics.blankgabriel said:
What sucks is that when a good platformer actually does get ported to PC, it doesn't have freaking gamepad support (cough BRAID). I know the guy was working on a budget but come on that couldn't have been much time to add.
The other plus of PC is that you can generally demo games for free without renting or even leaving the house. Though, they seem to have finally begun to address this with the current generation which is nice to see.
In the end though it all comes down to money, as usual. Studios generally think consoles offer a better ROI.
Yeah, but pretty much everyone owns a PC of some sort. Take the money you'd spend on your PS3, add it to what you'd normally spend on a computer, and you can easily construct a respectable gaming PC that will be able to play new games for at least two graphics card generations (maybe 3-5 years), plus the backlog of all the older games your budget Dell can't play.paypuh said:
The other plus of PC is that you can generally demo games for free without renting or even leaving the house. Though, they seem to have finally begun to address this with the current generation which is nice to see.
In the end though it all comes down to money, as usual. Studios generally think consoles offer a better ROI.
If you make a game for a console, you can just make sure it runs fine on that console.
If you make it for PC, you have to consider all the different hardware configurations people might have, you have to make it playable with a mouse/keyboard (Rather than it needing a joystick and keyboard is unplayable) and so on.
Also - Much easier to pirate games for PC than a 360/PS3. It's doable with the other two but you need to physically change the consoles, with a PC it can be done out of the box as it were.
If you make it for PC, you have to consider all the different hardware configurations people might have, you have to make it playable with a mouse/keyboard (Rather than it needing a joystick and keyboard is unplayable) and so on.
Also - Much easier to pirate games for PC than a 360/PS3. It's doable with the other two but you need to physically change the consoles, with a PC it can be done out of the box as it were.
I prefer console gaming for one reason. For the most part, any problem you encounter can be solved by turning off the console and turning it back on.
Yes, well...that's barring the RROD. =p
But yeah, I would have to agree with the many points expressed here that consoles can be a lot better for certain audiences and certain games.
To the OP, even if they DID port something like BlazBlue to the PC, you would have to provide some Mouse/Keyboard support to those that didn't get the message. It would inevitably be picked up by said people and receive poor reviews for "WHat F is paunch?" Some games just work better on consoles. Plus, developing for a console can often be easier because once it works on the development PS2 you have in your office, you know it'll work on every single one in the country. You can't say the same for PCs.
But conversely, some games just work best on PC. I just came out of a topic that criticized Microsoft (but first wrongly Valve) for not letting TF2 be updated. They've added a lot of content to it for free, something that is disallowed on consoles. It's kind of like the Windows/Linux argument. One is "stable", more "supported", but the other is much more open and not controlled by an overarching company.
But yeah, I would have to agree with the many points expressed here that consoles can be a lot better for certain audiences and certain games.
To the OP, even if they DID port something like BlazBlue to the PC, you would have to provide some Mouse/Keyboard support to those that didn't get the message. It would inevitably be picked up by said people and receive poor reviews for "WHat F is paunch?" Some games just work better on consoles. Plus, developing for a console can often be easier because once it works on the development PS2 you have in your office, you know it'll work on every single one in the country. You can't say the same for PCs.
But conversely, some games just work best on PC. I just came out of a topic that criticized Microsoft (but first wrongly Valve) for not letting TF2 be updated. They've added a lot of content to it for free, something that is disallowed on consoles. It's kind of like the Windows/Linux argument. One is "stable", more "supported", but the other is much more open and not controlled by an overarching company.
Just a side argument, I can use my PC to work, do homework on and to surf the internets, I can't do much of that on my consoles. Who knows, this might change though.
The point behind that statement was to show that not everyone buys a computer purely for gaming, however, the consoles are made for gaming.
I have grown up seeing the controller as the universal "Make dem shooty guys go shoot" remote. PC gaming fills the RTS and MMORPG roles fantastically well (that said, I hate MMORPG's, whereas I love me my RTS). It seems weird to use a mouse to operate a weapon: the same can be said of pressing a button with your thumb, but with two hands where each finger has a specific role to play, it results in a smoother reaction to a sudden need (a baddy hopping out of nowhere just within stab range) than rushing to press a small button among a hundred others.
Ah, but the trick is that console hardware is very cheap mostly beacuse it's deliberately sold cheaply by console manufacturers to gain market share, and they then make up for the low margins on the hardware by making money off games developers, who then pass that cost on to consumers, which is why console games are noticibly more expensive. So console hardware often only seems much less expensive; you'll make up the difference in cost when you buy games.paypuh said:
I upgraded my computer back in 07 and except for some more ram which set me back £15 and a £20 keyboard which was not necessary just for comfort i have not spent anything on it and i only expect to spend about £200 in the next year and that should see more good for a while i don't spend allot more than a console player however when i first built my rig it cost more than a console....allot more but if your savvy then you don't need to conform to the spend thousands every year stereotype.
Consoles are good because there just plug in and play there allot easier to use than computers especially if you are not a tech wizard.
The computer wins as my formate because all though we can argue the finer points of which gamers better till the cows come home computers have much more capability than consoles for creative and recreation purposes i mean are you posting on this forum using a 360?
Consoles are good because there just plug in and play there allot easier to use than computers especially if you are not a tech wizard.
The computer wins as my formate because all though we can argue the finer points of which gamers better till the cows come home computers have much more capability than consoles for creative and recreation purposes i mean are you posting on this forum using a 360?
I've always pushed the point that a computer is the way to go, you get gaming capabilities and much more then your usual console for the small taxation of putting the work in to make everything work correctly. IMO computer gamers tend to be a bit more intelligent then console gamers but that has exceptions. and it is true that consoles are easier to play but it's much like getting a radio controlled airplane. you can buy the enthusiast 6-hour assembly for a demon that can fly faster then neo on crack and maneuver like an acrobatic with wings or you can get the kids toy with a user friendly controller, easy-read-instruction manual and family friendly price tag. I love consoles, but I prefer something that I can tinker with. something I can change and modify to suit my needs, and in the end, a console is always just a restricted computer, no matter what angle you view it from.
NOTE: all of this is IMO and I do not need to hear about why you disagree with my two-cents, if you don't like it don't read it if you're offended that easily.
NOTE: all of this is IMO and I do not need to hear about why you disagree with my two-cents, if you don't like it don't read it if you're offended that easily.
Eh...it's not that hard to develop games for the PC. Xbox360 and Windows use the same media API (DirectX) as each other so if you made a 360 game, you could easily make it for the PC. Generally PC game developers only have to consider 2 variables:Danzaivar said:
1) What version of DirectX do we want to have the game playable on?
2) What is the minimum level of hardware strength we want the game to be playable on?
You're right in that console development is more straightforward and simple, but PCs aren't as daunting of a platform as you thought.
That was my minor reason, the big deal is how much harder it is to crack/copy a console game compared to a pc game.AbuFace said:
You're also forgetting that there's all fancy hardware quirks you can exploit with the 360 and (especially) PS3's architecture, which you can't guarantee with PC's simply because of the modular design. So you need to account for redundancy in case it isn't supported in the hardware. I know it ain't hard to make PC games, but it's harder to get everything you can out of the hardware.
And some developers don't want to do anything less than 'Everything we can get from the hardware'.
It's mainly because the said console buys the loyalty of a particular company, meaning people would have to buy their console to play a certain game.
No, I'm not forgetting those quirks, I'm just not counting them as a boon to consoles because those quirks are not necessarily good. In fact, they are the main reason most developers won't even bother with the PS3.Danzaivar said:
Redundancy in game coding doesn't hinder performance because the game only loads one code path at a time. If there's code to do something in DX 9 and DX 10, the game will only load the code that is relevant to what DX level you're running.
