Are PC games suffering due to consoles?

[DenSweeP]

Let's make a proper thread for this. And before fanbois start spewing their opinions that one is better than the other, take note, this is NOT a "which is better" console vs PC thread.

Please make intelligent and reasoned discussions. Where possible, provide some links backing up your arguments.

My very laymans' opinion is that yes, I think consoles are preventing PC games from being coded to make use of a PC's full hardware potential. I know that with consoles it's easy, because all consoles are the same, but each PC out there has a different spec and they can't cater for everyone, but that never seemed to stop developers before consoles. so why now?

[Lupus]

Consoles aren't preventing PC games from being coded to the PC, developers have made this problem, and mainly because of how PC gaming has become. Piracy is rife in the PC gaming world so developers latched on to the consoles as it was more difficult to pirate the games, then people started moaning so the developers were like okay fine we will support the PC again and made a few half arsed attempts at ports.
Also consoles have been around longer then Personal Computers so I'm not sure why you've got this image that PC's were the only dominant gaming platform out there at any given time, it's only in the last few years that consoles have actually gotten on par with PC's and I am for one glad for that as I am tired of constantly putting in a flashier graphics card so I'm DX whateva compliant.

[DenSweeP]

I'm not saying consoles must now suffer just because PC gamers want more, I'm just asking why can't PC gamers also get what they want? There is enough money in that sector, so why not?

[OmegaFenix]

I'm not saying consoles must now suffer just because PC gamers want more, I'm just asking why can't PC gamers also get what they want? There is enough money in that sector, so why not?

Why spend extra resources developing for a market (PC) where you may only sell 500 000 unites when you could still sell 450 000 unites, without the extra resources and still sell your 1.5 or even 2 million copies (console)?

[DenSweeP]

Why spend extra resources developing for a market (PC) where you may only sell 500 000 unites when you could still sell 450 000 unites, without the extra resources and still sell your 1.5 or even 2 million copies (console)?

Hahahaha! Because even though you are spending resources, you will still get more back and thus make a profit. What's not to like?
I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand the reasoning behind the "PC games aren't profitable" mentality.

[OmegaFenix]

Hahahaha! Because even though you are spending resources, you will still get more back and thus make a profit. What's not to like?
I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand the reasoning behind the "PC games aren't profitable" mentality.

450 000 units at lets say R400 a unit that is R180.000.000 without having to spend any extra resources.
Now lets say 500 000 unites a R400 a unit which is R200.000.000 but you had extra expenses for the extra resources poured in for a meaged 20mil... pffttt.

Now lets thar consoles:
1 000 000 units at R700 a unit that is R700.000.000 without the need for any extra expenses.

The differnece between the two is a jaw dropping R500.000.000 and remember this is going on what the retailer sells it for to the public not what publisher or developer gets.

In my mind a differnce of R500 mil... is fsking huge.

[DenSweeP]

Stats for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 gotten from BFBC2 Stats

Global PC Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
1 990 214
Players online:
15 903
Servers:
6 615

Global XBOX360 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
2 279 465
Players online:
?
Servers:
?

Global PS3 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
1 844 555
Players online:
8 213
Servers:
2 292

***************

1.9 million, yes, 1 900 000 PC players. Don't tell me there isn't money in the PC game market. Yes, over 4 million console gamers and good for them, really, but almost 2 million PC gamers can make you a fair bit of profit!

[OmegaFenix]

Stats for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 gotten from BFBC2 Stats

Global PC Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
1 990 214
Players online:
15 903
Servers:
6 615

Global XBOX360 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
2 279 465
Players online:
?
Servers:
?

Global PS3 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
1 844 555
Players online:
8 213
Servers:
2 292

***************

1.9 million, yes, 1 900 000 PC players. Don't tell me there isn't money in the PC game market. Yes, over 4 million console gamers and good for them, really, but almost 2 million PC gamers can make you a fair bit of profit!

BFBC2 on PC: R269
XBOX: R369
PS3: R359

Now we take your figures:

R269 X 1 990 214 = R535.367.566
R369 X 2 279 465 = R863.917.235
R359 X 1 844 555 = R662.195.245

Thats a total of R1526.112.480 on consoles alone which is roughtly 2.85 times that on PC. Again this is based solely on the prices of 1 retailer and not on what the dev/publisher gets.
Oh and its on Special on all 3 platforms.

[OmegaFenix]

Im a going to repost what I said in another thread before reposnding to DenSweeP's post:

I have a question.... in that piece its said that grpahics are no longer being pushed thanks to consoles... yet we will soon be graced by the Idtech4 engine which, in my opinion brings Brilliant graphics to all platforms. Also with Crysis 2 the consoles will also be showing off that it can keep up with their pc counter part. Is this more level playing field maybe not giving developers the chance to better code their engines?

Also isn't it better for the consumer (read PC gamer) that they no longer need to upgrade their GPU once a year to keep pumping out the best visuals?

Well think about it this way: Every GPU by say Nvidia has a similar but slightly differnt
Architecture, which is often while one game will run perfectly with (and this is just an example) a 9800GT but struggles with a 8900GTX. And then everytime a new GPU is released the devs need to work it into the game. Since all Xbox's and all PS3's have the exact same GPU with the same exact architecture the devs now dont need to worry about coding in 500 (Again just an example) differnt possible GPU and can instead focus on getting the best possible visuals out of that one specific gpu.

As a result of this many PC games no longer have the astromonical requirements thus opening up the market a little bit for people who do not have the cash to spend 2K on a GPU once a year.

Agreed. The manufactures are welcome to make new cards as often as they want, if they dont what GPUs will the next generation of consoles use. Similarly Game developers can choose to develope Crysis type games specifically for PC that utilises this new tech.
PC Gamers are also free to upgrade 2 twice a year if they (and their wallets) so desire.

But then dont go out saying things along the lines of:



or


or


I dunno where this dumbing down thing comes in but it makes me sick. For one Graphics does not = depth. Crysis is the best example of this, its a glorified tech demo which fails as a game. Similarly a deep and meaningful game does not have to have GPU roasting graphics. One of the best games ever made, Baldur's Gate 2, could run on a P2 with out a freaking GPU.

If anything the PC guys should be saying "Thank You Console guyz" since the advent of the original Xbox and PS2 brought gaming into clear daylight and is one of the biggest reason the industry is what it is today and not still 3 guyz in their mother's "carage house" coding pac man or something.

Ok Im getting of the topic here.
/Moves quietly along.

****

My very laymans' opinion is that yes, I think consoles are preventing PC games from being coded to make use of a PC's full hardware potential. I know that with consoles it's easy, because all consoles are the same, but each PC out there has a different spec and they can't cater for everyone, but that never seemed to stop developers before consoles. so why now?

My Agument is no, Consoles are Not hurting PC Games.

a PC's Full hardware potential

who's pc, the guy who barly makes ends meat and is running 2 year old tech or the tech savvy bachelor who has little to no other expenses other than pumping money into his PC? See that, in my opinion, is the problem with PC gaming, who gets to decide for which end of the spectrum developers develope?

can't cater for everyone, but that never seemed to stop developers before consoles

this time I ask before which consoles, the age old 16-bit or the PS1, N64, GameCube, DreamCast, PS2, Original Xbox, PS3, Wii or Xbox 360? before which generation of consoles? Lets set the bar at the dawn of PS2, when gaming really started to come into its own. No we look at games of that era, Half Life, Quake, Duke 3D, Quake 2, AoE, Star Craft, WarCraft, Diablo, Diablo 2. If you did not have a decent cpu Quake 2 was like playing in slow-mo. How did that cater to everyone?

In my opinion the advent of consoles like the PS2 and original Xbox helped this industry grow into the multi-million dollar industry it is now. If not for the vast numbers of people who bough a PS2 or Xbox and the games on those platforms would developers like Santa Monica (God of War Series) or Naughty Dog (Uncharted) or Bungie (Halo) have been enclined to cated to a small and niche market? Would we have gotten games with bigger budgets than some hollywood blockbuster? Would the industry have expanded and experimented with new ways of telling stories (Heavy Rain) or advances in multiplayer experiences (Halo, Call of Duty), I think not.

Even things like Xbox Live and PSN has made advances that the way we play. I mean the PC guys are in a flat spin(just like with MW2) about the dedicated servers. Yet here the console guyz are able to play perfectly stable game on matchmaking systems in Xbox live and PSN, which dont use dedicated servers.

[DenSweeP]

And piracy isn't rife amongst consoles? Even PS3's are now vulnerable.

I realise it isn't MS XBox 360 guys themselves or Sony techies preventing PC games from being more than they can be, but it is due to consoles and their appeal to more people that PC gamers are suffering.

As for upgrading etc, that is the oldest and pretty much only thing consolers always use when arguing the demerits of PC. But, this is NOT a PC vs Console thread.

Developers say that the PC game market is fading or not as big as it used to be. Ja well, firstly that's a load of shite. Secondly, can you blame PC gamers for not supporting the PC market at times? Look at the shite that gets released and PC gamers must fork out hundreds of Rands and be super grateful? "Why thank you Activision/EA/Dice/IWnet for giving me a nice pile of shit, I love it and please make more." There are still millions of PC gamers out there willing to spend money on good, decent titles. Just look at the support BC2 and MW2 has from the PC side only, despite all the kak surrounding the games. Hell, throw MoH in as well.

Developers can get off their high horses and make PC gamers a decent title. I promise, they will still make millions. But that is the problem, gaming is no longer being made by real geeky gamers themselves who love everything about it, they are more and more being taken over by power and money hungry schmucks like Bobby Kotick who only care about how much money they can make.

So maybe consoles aren't directly to blame, but they do play their part, because lets face it, far more people are likely to play on a Wii or a Xbox or a PS3 than they would on your computer. BUT, why does that mean that PC games must neglected?