Cliffy B and Epic claim they are done with the PC, consoles primary focus from here

eggrock said:
Oh, no. Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap and Far Cry looks better and I can't run at 3000x2000 with max. settings on my Radeon 200XPXTXXXGSX, multiplayer sucks blah blah blah. [/sarcasm]

Some people *deserve* consoles. The rest of us suffer for it. :mad:
Click to expand...

lol
 
eggrock said:
Oh, no. Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap and Far Cry looks better and I can't run at 3000x2000 with max. settings on my Radeon 200XPXTXXXGSX, multiplayer sucks blah blah blah. [/sarcasm]

Some people *deserve* consoles. The rest of us suffer for it. :mad:
Click to expand...

haha, I was just schooled...I was reading the first line and was already considering my response about how you're talking bollocks, then finished reading, well played sir ;)

Yeah exactly, for all the positive points of consoles they're still an inferiour gaming platform and console users settle for it. I don't mind paying more and putting up with additional issues to get gaming on the PC because it's just fundamentally better.
 
What is wrong with you people?

Here's Epic, a major contributor to the online FPS community for years. UT is one of the greatest PC shooters. As well, Epic released numerous FREE map packs for the PC community.

The PC FPS market has indeed been drying up for years. MMOs pulled away a huge portion of it. And what are the popular PC shooters these days? The much slower, more realistic and military based noob friendly ones. Do you all realize the UTs and the Quake type shooters are not among that group? So pay attention:

MMOs bring in the majority of the PC gamer market
PC FPS games that do well on the platform, are the slower realism shooters. UT is nowhere near that type of game.
On top of that, Consoles are thriving and have the larger and faster growing game base. Games that can sell incredibly well, because being essentially built primarly as gaming platforms, they are much cheaper and much easier to operate, than an equivalently powered PC.

So this company, that has given it's PC fans loads of free content, and has a staff of people that have themselves and families to support, and has the above negatives to deal with on the PC side, is stupid for wanting to keep its staff and business operating by focusing primarily on a platform that is helping their company grow and thrive?

Again, I ask:

What is wrong with you people?
 
You know, the more of these console fanboys that do crappy ports give up on the PC market, the better off the PC market is. As they pack up their bad code and go home, that improves the ratio of good games to bad games and will improve the per title sales of the good games, giving the good game companies incentive to continue putting out high-quality games.

So please, if you make lousy console ports like those guys have, don't bother. Stick with console sales, the volume makes the market a lot more tolerant of crap. One bad game on this side can put you under.
 
kaluminati said:
The PC FPS market has indeed been drying up for years. MMOs pulled away a huge portion of it. And what are the popular PC shooters these days? The much slower, more realistic and military based noob friendly ones. Do you all realize the UTs and the Quake type shooters are not among that group?
Click to expand...

News flash: FPS games have evolved. There aren't any more UT/Quake-style shooters, on PC or on console. Some are faster or slower than others, but they've all progressed beyond the mindless twitch gameplay of Quake3 and UT.

And exactly which one fits Team Fortress 2: slower? realistic? military-based? noob-friendly? Because I gotta tell you...I don't think it's any of those.

edit: and if the PC market is so dry, why has the RTS genre not been more active since 1998?
 
ARGHGHsghdifughgdif!!!! sorry to explode but this has hit a nerve.

What really, REALLY gets on my nerves is most of the problems inherent with the PC version of a cross developed game (or ported) are easy to get right, really really really basic simply easy stuff, that doesn't take long to fix at all, it's just down to lack of caring and testing.

  • UT3 for example, the menu, just FIX IT, how long does it take to re-write the damn menu? Maybe a week tops? THERE'S NO EXCUSE.
  • FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop using gamespy for the server browser, just stop it.
  • DO NOT force mouse acceleration, this is so fundamental, console users need this because their control method is so pathetically crap at FPS games, most PC users do not need this, at the very least give us the option to remove it. I wan't to know how this specifically makes it through testing, ISN'T ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION?
  • DO NOT forget 16:10 aspect ratio based resolutions, widescreen on the PC is 16:10 standard, not 16:9, although best to leave these included for people gaming on TV's rather than monitors.
  • Stop using crap FOV's like 60, whatever restriction there is on consoles that makes this a common FOV for FPS games does NOT exist on the PC, stop bloody well doing it!

I'm sorry these are BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL aspects of PC gameplay, most of these things like widescreen are standards built into the PC format specifically to make this stuff easier, most of it is simple to fix and none of these issues should not make it through the first round of gameplay testing.

How can you build a game and not know what the PC widescreen aspect ratio is? That is just plain retarded. Get it right, get the FOV right... or fuck off, thats right epic this includes you.

[/rant]
 
PopeKevinI said:
News flash: FPS games have evolved. There aren't any more UT/Quake-style shooters, on PC or on console. Some are faster or slower than others, but they've all progressed beyond the mindless twitch gameplay of Quake3 and UT.

And exactly which one fits Team Fortress 2: slower? realistic? military-based? noob-friendly? Because I gotta tell you...I don't think it's any of those.

edit: and if the PC market is so dry, why has the RTS genre not been more active since 1998?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call twitch shooters mindless just because they don't have what some people considered more evolved gameplay. Any one who is good at Quake or UT would own anybody else in any FPS – generally.
 
kaluminati said:
Here's Epic, a major contributor to the online FPS community for years. UT is one of the greatest PC shooters. As well, Epic released numerous FREE map packs for the PC community...

And what are the popular PC shooters these days? The much slower, more realistic and military based noob friendly ones. Do you all realize the UTs and the Quake type shooters are not among that group?...

PC FPS games that do well on the platform, are the slower realism shooters. UT is nowhere near that type of game.
Click to expand...

First of all, judging by the fact that you're emphasizing "FREE," you may not have been around for the many many years when PC shooters had gamers building and creating new maps to play on. Or for all the years when we never even knew what 'microtransactions' were. Pay, for a map pack!? These were things that were included with new patches and while they weren't expected, nobody imagined that we would have to pay for them.

Remember, all of these franchises began on the PC; Quake 1-3 in my opinion showed off and perfected what ultra-fast fragfests were all about. It's when these games continue to be so derivative that it begins to lose the point of it all, and UT3 is another example of this.

The successes of Quake 4, UT2k3/2k4, all show that there is plenty of a market available for those kinds of games on the PC; it isn't just the tactical shooters that have success (although I don't really know what's wrong with a tactical shooter...).
 
Frosteh said:
ARGHGHsghdifughgdif!!!! sorry to explode but this has hit a nerve.

What really, REALLY gets on my nerves is most of the problems inherent with the PC version of a cross developed game (or ported) are easy to get right, really really really basic simply easy stuff, that doesn't take long to fix at all, it's just down to lack of caring and testing.
Click to expand...

The most recent example for me was the demo for The Club - a game I was actually pretty excited about. Immediately upon firing it up I was greeted with a menu system inundated with Xbox 360 selections. ............. wow. Now I'm sure the game is playable with a 360 controller, but seriously, this is just fucking lazy, and tells me as a PC gamer that you put the minimal effort into the PC version.

Then I found out the game seems to have a forced mouse acceleration at which point I just turned if off.

To be fair, maybe the full version will have fixed these issues.
 
PoweredBySoy said:
The most recent example for me was the demo for The Club - a game I was actually pretty excited about. Immediately upon firing it up I was greeted with a menu system inundated with Xbox 360 selections. ............. wow. Now I'm sure the game is playable with a 360 controller, but seriously, this is just fucking lazy, and tells me as a PC gamer that you put the minimal effort into the PC version.

Then I found out the game seems to have a forced mouse acceleration at which point I just turned if off.

To be fair, maybe the full version will have fixed these issues.
Click to expand...

Yep, same here, downloaded it, game is littered with "press A" for this and "press B" for the other, found the game fundamentally uncontrolable due to the heavy mouse acceleration which you have no option to turn off.

Fixing both these issues would be simple and easy, if it was some hugely complex and highly integrated problem which would take months of testing and fixing then I might be more sympathetic to its inclusion, as it stands this is just lazy and/or unforgivably stupid.

We can't encourage this behaviour by buying games like this.
 
Yeah, they bitch that it won't sell but they put all of 5 hours of effort into it. Thats total bullshit. Any PC game that tells me Press A to jump and doesn't mean "a" on my keyboard, is obviously a lazy port and not worth my money.
 
I've got a feeling this is exactly what Epic wanted. It only took a taste of console fame and fortune via GoW. They intentionally slacked on PC support for UT3 because they were reducing focus on the smaller PC market anyway. Not a bad business decision in the scheme of things, but they went about it in a dishonest way.

Epic used to be a great contributor to the PC, but that is over. I've got copies of Unreal, UT, UT03 and UT04. I remember when CliffyB used to play against us on DM-Curse and Deck16 back when UT released. Good times. Epic has just decided to follow the money.

PC gaming is doing great, though it will always remain a smaller market than consoles. I bought 4 shooters last year (fear, bioshock, cod4, crysis), that genre is doing just fine. I had planned to get UT3 but passed after playing the demo and seeing the lack of support.
 
They haven't made anything I've wanted to play in years anyway. Why can't more companies just make games that run on just about anything and are fun(like Blizzard)...way too much focus on graphics now-a-days.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The problem with PC gaming is hardware, not software. We need PC's that can actually play ANY new game release at their full potential. NOT at low-medium settings at 800x600 when released.

That's where the problem lays and once hardware SURPASSES software, and has drastically reduced in price, it will change. In a perfect world, we should of had the 8 series cards from Nvidia when Doom3 was released.
 
ummm... I have a rather middle of the road PC, it cost me a few pennies more than $1000 (by new egg prices which are cheaper than german) and could run Crysis at 1280 x 1024 on high.

Yes, thats more than a console, but its also a more efficient system that can do a lot more.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
ummm... I have a rather middle of the road PC, it cost me a few pennies more than $1000 (by new egg prices which are cheaper than german) and could run Crysis at 1280 x 1024 on high.

Yes, thats more than a console, but its also a more efficient system that can do a lot more.
Click to expand...

1280 x 1024 looks like shit compared to higher resolutions. At that point you are better off buying a console which will look way better in comparison.

Newly released PC games are always running at the most half of their potential. PC games use to feature better gameplay and graphics compared to console in the 90s because console had yet to fully develop.
 
TheGooch69 said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The problem with PC gaming is hardware, not software. We need PC's that can actually play ANY new game release at their full potential. NOT at low-medium settings at 800x600 when released.

That's where the problem lays and once hardware SURPASSES software, and has drastically reduced in price, it will change. In a perfect world, we should of had the 8 series cards from Nvidia when Doom3 was released.
Click to expand...

Big problem with this...

Software developers always develop their software to appeal to a wide range of hardware, from the quite slow to very high. As such when a game is released it's "high" settings are only going to be playable by people with very good PC's, "medium" for people with average PC's and "low" for people with old PC's.

If you increase the capability of the hardware the software follows, you do end up with extreme cases at both end of the scale. In the case of Crysis the developers who made the game, also made the engine and it's not financially viable to develop such a complex engine for the use in 1 game only, it's designed to be sold to other developers. In this respect the engine needs to be ahead of its time to ensure it can be sold over a number of years and still remain attractive to potential buyers.

Either way, it's still a silly argument to say that developers shouldn't push the limits of the hardware to simply make the average consumer feel good about their average graphics card. Increasing the high end of the settings doesn't generally effect the middle range cards, it makes the medium range cards look worse in comparison but thats only a relative measurement.

Essentially this is just a case of bruised ego syndrome.
 
Ritorix said:
Epic used to be a great contributor to the PC, but that is over. I've got copies of Unreal, UT, UT03 and UT04. I remember when CliffyB used to play against us on DM-Curse and Deck16 back when UT released. Good times. Epic has just decided to follow the money.

PC gaming is doing great, though it will always remain a smaller market than consoles. I bought 4 shooters last year (fear, bioshock, cod4, crysis), that genre is doing just fine. I had planned to get UT3 but passed after playing the demo and seeing the lack of support.
Click to expand...
I remember playing against CliffyB. Good times back then.
I was into flight sims and RTS and didn't even play FPS'ers. Downloaded the UT demo. I was hooked and pre-ordered the game. Bought Unreal/Return to Na Pali/The Wheel of Time/UT2K3/4 and waited for UT2007...UT3.

UT3 was released with too many games, (IMO better choices) coming out at the same time. If it had been a PC gaming title drought at the time, it would have helped Epic. Thankfully for us gamers, it wasn't.
 
PC hardware requirements are nothing new and something Epic always pushed. They are still up there with iD in terms of being cutting-edge engine developers.

When Unreal came out it looked damn amazing. The first machine I played it on (all the way through!) was a 166 Pentium. Video card was a goddamn Voodoo Banshee and it ran horribly. Thats also what got me into overclocking. Ran that baby up to 233 with stock heatsink, woo. :)
 
TheGooch69 said:
1280 x 1024 looks like shit compared to higher resolutions. At that point you are better off buying a console which will look way better in comparison.
Click to expand...

Depends how big your monitor is. And I don't see any of the current consoles running Crysis in HD any time soon.
 
PC gaming is on the decline as is gaming in general.

It's almost 90% catered to those that want instant gratification. The players who want something quick and fast and the developers who want to release a game and make x amount and only spend y amount.

The few games that do come out that have that polish and show the "for the love of the game" design and players who play them are few and far between.

TF2 is an amazing PC game. Many hours spent on it, and I can fire it up and still have a good time, little details that show that there was a lot of thought in the game.

Super Mario Galaxy, ok so it's a Wii game but it's epic in feel. So was Twilight Princess. Those games showed a lot of love behind the work.

My latest is DMC4. A lot of thought went into this game. Though it's kinda short and a few levels repeat in unique ways, the gameplay has me hooked. Then there's the difficulty. The enemies use more tactics, get new moves and get more in number as you step it up with your skill.

How many game come out that are mediocre?

It's almost as bad as movies today, at least something might appeal to someone... Too much effort on flash, not enough on content.
 
defiant007 said:
What is your definition of selling well? Got any statistics to back up anything you say? There was plenty of whining by EA the other month that crysis did not sell well enough, but last time I checked they had sold well over a million copies. Steam has over 12 million users. And what other exclusive are you talking about...most of the games released last year were either a port or cross developed?!
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I mean if you don't know what were PC exclusive games than you wouldn't care anyway about the news "Console priority first"

Who cares about the Steam over 12 million users? I have steam and havent touched it in months. But I'm a user just because I bought HL2.
 
meatfestival said:
I don't know what you guys are smoking, but apart from the shitty MS Live stuff, Gears was a very good port (thanks to People Can Fly)..
Click to expand...
The shitty MS Live stuff was enough to get me to not buy it. On every forum I visited, people were complaining left and right that they were losing saved games. That, by itself, is enough to turn people away, even if Epic managed to get everything else right with the port.

Even the periodic crashing of The Witcher was tolerable because I could always revert to a saved session, losing only 10-15 minutes of play time at worst. If I got 1/3 of the way through GoW, and lost my saves, I'd probably never play it again. And since that was a very real possibility, I just skipped it.
 
4saken said:
+1. Except for a few rare releases, such as Sins of a Solar Empire, and some racing sims, i hardly do any gaming on my PC anymore. Its all on consoles. Just not worth the hassle and having to wait for ports of the games i want to play, then having them broken or half assed. PC gaming is in backseat now.
Click to expand...

Console gaming is backseat now for ME.. my 360 collects dust.. even with all the games available i just hate using a gamepad, no matter how much time i spend on it, it doesn't ever feel as good and natural as mouse/keyboard.. and even though i have a 47"/1080p set, the resolution is never nearly as good as it is on my pc.. plus i'm tired of the increased immaturity of console kiddies, of being nickel and dimed with every piece of downloadable item including pictures/gamertags (thx for charging me money for a 2kb jpeg, wtf) so pc gaming wins for me all the time, and i never have a problem running out of games to play.. i dont have enough time to play them all!

isn't it funny how things change just based on ones perspective... as for epic.. well fuck 'em, let them enjoy developing on console only, I DID very much enjoy gears of war.. but i dont care if their games arent on pc anymore
 
NPD tracks a lot of different consumer sales figures, including PC and consoles.

http://www.npd.com/

"U.S. sales of video games, which includes portable and console hardware, software and accessories, generated revenues of almost $18 billion, a 43 percent increase over the $12.5 billion generated in 2006.

Retail sales in the PC game software industry reached $911 million in 2007, bringing the total console, portable and PC game industry to $18.8 billion, a 40 percent increase over the $13.5 billion generated in 2006."

The top 10 PC sales for 2007...

# 1. World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade – Blizzard – 2.25 million
# 2. World of Warcraft- Blizzard – 914,000
# 3. The Sims 2 – Electronic Arts – 534,000
# 4. The Sims 2 Seasons Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 433,000
# 5. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare – Activision – 383,000
# 6. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars – Electronic Arts – 350,000
# 7. Age of Empires III – Microsoft – 313,000
# 8. Sim City 4 - Electronic Arts – 294,000
# 9. MS Flight Simulator X - Microsoft - 280,000
# 10. The Sims 2 Bon Voyage Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 272,000

If these figures are accurate, some fuzzy math puts WoW+WOW:BC at around 160mil of the 911mil for PC sales last year, in box sales (~$50/box). That also puts PC gaming at about 5% of the 18 bil console gaming sales figures. Its a deceptive number. It takes into account console hardware sales. It doesnt take into account PC hardware sales, have to look into INTC, AMD, NVDA numbers for that but its hard since PCs are multipurpose. Also doesnt account for MMO subscriptions, which would vastly inflate PC sales numbers given WoW's high sales.
 
TheGooch69 said:
1280 x 1024 looks like shit compared to higher resolutions. At that point you are better off buying a console which will look way better in comparison.

Newly released PC games are always running at the most half of their potential. PC games use to feature better gameplay and graphics compared to console in the 90s because console had yet to fully develop.
Click to expand...
1280x1024 is bigger than 720p... wtf are you smoking? You can build a pc for under $500 that runs the same games out on 360 at that resolution at 30 fps.
 
SlimyTadpole said:
The shitty MS Live stuff was enough to get me to not buy it. On every forum I visited, people were complaining left and right that they were losing saved games. That, by itself, is enough to turn people away, even if Epic managed to get everything else right with the port.
.
Click to expand...

It wasn't only that, but it was also how the shitty Live for Windows was integrate into the multiplayer. PC gamers who don't have a 360, or who just don't pay for Live, had to pay $50 for certain multiplayer features? There were no dedicated servers?

Gears of War had a fuckton of potential to be a hit online (hell, tons of people still play Halo for the PC) but Epic fucked that up.. I wish they wouldn't have used shitty Live to begin with, and maybe then we could have seen a decent multiplayer game.

Kind of like how Halo 2 cannibalized itself by going Vista only. It really shows Microsoft and some of it's more popular developers don't understand the PC gaming world at all.

Microsoft is starting a PC Gaming Alliance? They can start by ditching Live for Windows because it will *NEVER* catch on, and most developers refuse to use it.
 
Roufuss said:
It wasn't only that, but it was also how the shitty Live for Windows was integrate into the multiplayer. PC gamers who don't have a 360, or who just don't pay for Live, had to pay $50 for certain multiplayer features? There were no dedicated servers?

Gears of War had a fuckton of potential to be a hit online (hell, tons of people still play Halo for the PC) but Epic fucked that up.. I wish they wouldn't have used shitty Live to begin with, and maybe then we could have seen a decent multiplayer game.

Kind of like how Halo 2 cannibalized itself by going Vista only. It really shows Microsoft and some of it's more popular developers don't understand the PC gaming world at all.

Microsoft is starting a PC Gaming Alliance? They can start by ditching Live for Windows because it will *NEVER* catch on, and most developers refuse to use it.
Click to expand...
agreed. Gears of War had CounterStrike potential if it had been done right w/o Live and with proper dedicated servers and support from Epic (one lousy patch in months and people are posting bugs on the forums every day). Now its just a big joke. Multiplayer FPSs will fail miseralbly on PC w/o dedicated servers, I don't understand why this is such a big mystery to some of these companies. Ranbow 6 Vegas and Gears are both good multiplayer games and had potential on PC but there are probably 20 people online right now playing them combined. Why would I wait for 30 min to set up a Gears game only to have to the fucking 'host' quit halfway though when I can load Call of Duty 4 with over 6000 populated dedicated severs running right now? Did I mention more people play Counter Strike daily that all of Xbox Live combined? There is nothing wrong with the shooter market on pc, you just can't get away with shit that would fly 10 years ago. Epic has lost their touch and don't know how to make good PC games anymore, so they are blaming the PC instead of themselves.
 
LOL, yeah EPIC lets make a console driven port of UT3 for PC and they get pissy cause it didn't sell. Most PC gamers can smell a console port a mile away. Look at COD4 & TF2 why did they do so well because there fun games to play online. Make a good game that plays SMOOTH and is FUN and watch PC gamers buy it and guess what BUY MORE HARDWARE.

my 2 cents.
 
first of all i think WOW and Sims sell so well because everyone from 9 till 99 can play it.
2ndly it doesn't contain excessive gore nor real skills to amuse yourself.
3rdly...they're fun albeit not available for consoles. Combine this with the fact that its popular and not taxing for the pc at all, kids, parents and young peeps buy it. They're bot h attractive for both genres too and have 'cute' cartoony style which makes then look innocent ( hell..AFAIK they are )

->Most gameproducers don't care about fans...they care about the fan's money.
Now lets look at average young joe. They're not THAT interested in PC's so they like the easiness of a console... Hell gaming friends of mine ( console and PC ) have 8800GTS's with the drivers that came on the CD's and never patched windows nor the games!
And if you know a current habit is to release a alpha at best and then try and polish it to a real game by patches.. you'd know that it'll become...hell IS disastrous.

Still...the ability to run on-line shooters on consoles is ridiculous:
Try running DODs, CSs or TF2 on a console connected to the internet... just imagine it!
It'd wouldn't be the same... Also 9 out of 10 times they give you an auto aim...
exactly, the thing we all hate and is banned for a reason.
Why not giving them all wall hacks then? ^^

Oh and EA, don't ever support wide-screen HD-format on your consolised multiplayer onlineshooter... It was cheating in BF2 for pc, remember? So why use it for consoles? not everybody can afford a HD tv...


/rant and BIG sigh... owell
 
Slade said:
PC gaming is on the decline as is gaming in general.

It's almost 90% catered to those that want instant gratification. The players who want something quick and fast and the developers who want to release a game and make x amount and only spend y amount.

The few games that do come out that have that polish and show the "for the love of the game" design and players who play them are few and far between.

TF2 is an amazing PC game. Many hours spent on it, and I can fire it up and still have a good time, little details that show that there was a lot of thought in the game.

Super Mario Galaxy, ok so it's a Wii game but it's epic in feel. So was Twilight Princess. Those games showed a lot of love behind the work.

My latest is DMC4. A lot of thought went into this game. Though it's kinda short and a few levels repeat in unique ways, the gameplay has me hooked. Then there's the difficulty. The enemies use more tactics, get new moves and get more in number as you step it up with your skill.

How many game come out that are mediocre?

It's almost as bad as movies today, at least something might appeal to someone... Too much effort on flash, not enough on content.
Click to expand...

Seriously well said. Step on toes if you must, but it's the truth. I'd say that that's why the older gamers get flustered b/c of this exact situation....
 
TheGooch69 said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The problem with PC gaming is hardware, not software. We need PC's that can actually play ANY new game release at their full potential. NOT at low-medium settings at 800x600 when released.

That's where the problem lays and once hardware SURPASSES software, and has drastically reduced in price, it will change. In a perfect world, we should of had the 8 series cards from Nvidia when Doom3 was released.
Click to expand...

1280 x 1024 looks like shit compared to higher resolutions. At that point you are better off buying a console which will look way better in comparison.

Newly released PC games are always running at the most half of their potential. PC games use to feature better gameplay and graphics compared to console in the 90s because console had yet to fully develop.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Halo 3 runs at 640p, as do many other 360 games. That's 1138x640 with no anti aliasing and only bilinear filtering. And some games like Call of Duty 4 run at only 600p (1024x600)! Oh wow, I'd never guess that CoD4 on my PC running at 1920x1200 with 16xAA with 4x anisotropic filtering would give a lower frame rate! I mean, it's only pushing out 2,304,000 pixels per frame instead of an amazing 614,400! I mean, the PC is only doing 375% as much work graphically, so the 30 fps you get on CoD4 on the XBox should be at least 90 fps on the PC! Even running at 1280x1024 requires 213% more power to run than the horrible graphics you get on the XBox.

And yes, I did say that. Your PC that runs games @ full potential? Your console doesn't even run a game at what is available for the PC. If you've ever played a game that's available both on the console and PC that wasn't a horrible port, the console version is at best running on medium settings. (ie: Oblivion on the XBox 360 looks absolutely ugly compared to the PC version.) Games such as Crysis are not meant to be run on current generation hardware. It's called future proofing. And a lot of games use to not be runnable even on top of the line computers until just a few years ago (Origin was notorious for this). It's because some advertising executive found that people felt better if you called low settings max settings, than allowing even better settings for systems that weren't available at the time. According to the Steam survey, most people who use Steam can run Crysis. You're just upset that you can't run the game the way you'd like to run the game. A way that the designers didn't design the game to be run for current generation hardware.

You currently can run games at their full current potential. And while not the full potential the game allows, it's still much better than the graphics you'll ever get on an XBox 360 or PS3.
 
Frosteh said:
Proof of this please, I was under the impression that gaming is more popular than ever, on every platform.
Click to expand...
I dont have the numbers, but im pretty sure gaming industry revenue in 2007 was the highest in history. Steam sales were up 50%.
 
shiznit said:
I dont have the numbers, but im pretty sure gaming industry revenue in 2007 was the highest in history. Steam sales were up 50%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see no reason for gaming to be in decline for any platform right now, they're all in a state of quite rapid expansion as far as sales are concerned, gaming is no longer the nerd thing it used to be back in the days when we all paid gross amount for our 9,28,56k modems to play quake online with :)
 
It really makes you wonder if this is just sour grapes over the shitty adoption rate of UT 3. CoD 4 and TF 2 both have thousands of players online at any time, according to a few stat tracking sites, but I've never seen UT 3 even crack a thousand, and we're almost 4 months away from launch.

I can see UT 3 on the 360 outselling the PC one 3 to 1 which will only further solidy Epic's position.

But I bet if UT 3 sold like gangbusters Epic would be all "The PC platform is in a state of growth and we are happy to be a part of it!"

This is almost ties into Mark Rein's recent interview with someone that claims "Consoles are stealing all the PC gamers away"... gee, Mark, maybe Epic has something to do with that shittiness, since Gears was on 360 long before PC with online multiplayer that actually worked in that environment?

I wish I could find the interview where Mark Rein claimed the PC was Epic's "bread and butter" and that's why they put those extra features into GoW.
 
The thing that will REALLY be the death of PC gaming is elitism. You can see examples in this very thread, but PC gaming has always seemed like it has more of the 20+ guys still living in their parents' basement thinking they're the shit because all they do is play Counterstrike all day, every day. Then you get a new player coming in and jumping into the game and said pimple-faced loser owns them. "That's how it's supposed to be!" the elitists cry, not realizing that that isn't the point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top