312 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

And the fact that ME1 was released on XBox first and nobody had heard of it before it hit the PC.

Um ... no? It was a Bioware release, everyone had heard of it. Bioware was big before Mass Effect, y'know.

Let's see, there was Buldur's Gate - a PC game. KOTOR - a PC game. Both of these were big hits, granted.

Jade empire was released on XBox first and it's total sales? 700k.

Yes people had heard of Bioware before mass effect, those people were PC gamers.

KOTOR was xbox game.

Modifié par xkg, 27 avril 2012 - 03:09 .

[Emzamination]

abaris wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

With that kind of coin you could've bought nearly 10 xbox 360 systems or 1 with a boss collection of games and Ms points.I don't believe that choice was made in your best interest.

Some people like to drive a Rolls if they can afford it.

Even if I had that kind of coin I wouldn't invest it in a PC system. But I certainly wouldn't invest it in a console either. And that's totally a matter of preference and taste. The console just doesn't offer what I expect from a gaming experience. Mods, individual tweaks and the likes most prominent on my preference list.

But if you go with the lexus, it cost less to repair once it breaks down and you can redistribute the money you save into private sectors,companies,stock and charities effectively doubling and increasing your earnings.

[Emzamination]

xkg wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

And the fact that ME1 was released on XBox first and nobody had heard of it before it hit the PC.

Um ... no? It was a Bioware release, everyone had heard of it. Bioware was big before Mass Effect, y'know.

Let's see, there was Buldur's Gate - a PC game. KOTOR - a PC game. Both of these were big hits, granted.

Jade empire was released on XBox first and it's total sales? 700k.

Yes people had heard of Bioware before mass effect, those people were PC gamers.

KOTOR was xbox game.

It was both

[chester013]

xkg wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

And the fact that ME1 was released on XBox first and nobody had heard of it before it hit the PC.

Um ... no? It was a Bioware release, everyone had heard of it. Bioware was big before Mass Effect, y'know.

Let's see, there was Buldur's Gate - a PC game. KOTOR - a PC game. Both of these were big hits, granted.

Jade empire was released on XBox first and it's total sales? 700k.

Yes people had heard of Bioware before mass effect, those people were PC gamers.

KOTOR was xbox game.

I stand corrected, KOTOR was indeed an XBox game. But weirdly I think me being totally wrong about that reinforces the point - an XBox RPG is still regarded as a classic, hardly killed the game by being on a console.

[abaris]

Emzamination wrote...

But if you go with the lexus, it cost less to repair once it breaks down and you can redistribute the money you save into private sectors,companies,stock and charities effectively doubling and increasing your earnings.

OK, thank you for not reading up what I actually said about my preferences.

That's the second time in a row I got quoted by someone obviously not reading what I actually said.

[Emzamination]

abaris wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

But if you go with the lexus, it cost less to repair once it breaks down and you can redistribute the money you save into private sectors,companies,stock and charities effectively doubling and increasing your earnings.

OK, thank you for not reading up what I actually said about my preferences.

That's the second time in a row I got quoted by someone obviously not reading what I actually said.

I read what you said to the letter but the conservative in me could not accept such wasteful logic.I hope you understand, abaris.

[Eclipse merc]

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

That's your opinion.

[Funkcase]

Emzamination wrote...

xkg wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

chester013 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

And the fact that ME1 was released on XBox first and nobody had heard of it before it hit the PC.

Um ... no? It was a Bioware release, everyone had heard of it. Bioware was big before Mass Effect, y'know.

Let's see, there was Buldur's Gate - a PC game. KOTOR - a PC game. Both of these were big hits, granted.

Jade empire was released on XBox first and it's total sales? 700k.

Yes people had heard of Bioware before mass effect, those people were PC gamers.

KOTOR was xbox game.

It was both

It was actually a xbox exclusive later ported to PC, like Mass Effect and Jade empire.

And lets be honest OP, Dark souls is proof this is not the case. I think it depends highly on the publisher, if a publisher rushes the developer then we get a weaker game, Kotor 2 was unfinished and could have been alot better than the original if Lucas arts gave Obsidian more time.

Modifié par Funkcase, 27 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[voteDC]

PC gaming need not be any more expensive than console gaming. True initial outlay is more expensive but that is counter-balanced by the (often far) cheaper price of games and that there is no need to buy into official peripherals, as well as existing ones are almost always compatible with the new PC.

The tech in my PC is about the same age as my 360 and while I may be turning down settings it still produces results that are as good as anything that the console can do.

I hope the question isn't minded but why do people complain about the price of upgrading a PC, when needed, but don't mind spending a fortune on new console perhiperals such as controllers and will quite happily spend £200 for a new console when the old one breaks or because a 'special edition' is being released.

A friend of mine is exactly like the above description. He goes on continually when we discuss gaming about how PCs need upgrading all the time but has bought every special edition 360 that has been released, as well as money on repairs and replacements for ones that have died because of RRoD.

I love my PC gaming and I love gaming on my 360. I just don't get why people have to try and force divisions between groups of gamers.

Sorry for the mini-rant there. The problem with PC gaming is that publishers see it as a 'pirates paradise', after all Ubisoft said not too long ago that they weren't releasing I Am Alive on the PC because people would just pirate it.

So for the moment PC exclusives are not the way to go, simply because of the reputation that PC gaming has with both the general public and the publishers.

Modifié par voteDC, 27 avril 2012 - 04:00 .

[DonYourAviators]

The Razman wrote...

Mildiner wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

My hypothesis does not depend upon the Witcher 2 being any good, it was simply an example.

But for the record, I quite liked it and I might like it even more with the 10GB of free additional content I've just be given.

It does, kind of though. The Witcher 2 releasing free stuff and all of that is only possible because the devs are disregarding the whole issue which your premise is based on. They can afford to be PC exclusive and to release free stuff because they have a very profitable side-business giving them financial security (GOG.com). Just like Valve can afford to not release new games until they're exactly how they want them because with Steam running the way it is they never have to worry about the money.

PC exclusives are not only financially unsound, but your premise that we would see benefits as a result is flawed for that reason. The people who are showing benefits by being PC exclusive have other means of income supporting their business.

The problem with your argument here and elsewhere is that your opinion is often wrong.

[BatmanPWNS]

Like anyones ever going to do that. Console exclusive generally sell way more than PC exclusives and the main job of any developer is to make as much moeny as possible.

[aberdash]

voteDC wrote...

Sorry for the mini-rant there. The problem with PC gaming is that publishers see it as a 'pirates paradise', after all Ubisoft said not too long ago that they weren't releasing I Am Alive on the PC because people would just pirate it.

PC gamers aren't buying ubisoft games anyways. Developers and publishers try to blame pirates because its easier than admitting they released a bad game.

CD Projekt, Paradox, and GSC prove that PC exclusives can be profitable but multiplats have a larger group of potential buyers. So in the long run it is probably better to release a game on multiple platforms.

Modifié par aberdash, 27 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[Kaelef]

An even safer bet is to not buy any games at all. Then you can never be disappointed!

Modifié par Kaelef, 27 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[abaris]

voteDC wrote...

Sorry for the mini-rant there. The problem with PC gaming is that publishers see it as a 'pirates paradise', after all Ubisoft said not too long ago that they weren't releasing I Am Alive on the PC because people would just pirate it.

That argument doesn't hold water because console titles are also pirated.

The real reason for publishing console only is probably the lower development costs of not having to port or adapt.

[The Razman]

DonYourAviators wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Mildiner wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

My hypothesis does not depend upon the Witcher 2 being any good, it was simply an example.

But for the record, I quite liked it and I might like it even more with the 10GB of free additional content I've just be given.

It does, kind of though. The Witcher 2 releasing free stuff and all of that is only possible because the devs are disregarding the whole issue which your premise is based on. They can afford to be PC exclusive and to release free stuff because they have a very profitable side-business giving them financial security (GOG.com). Just like Valve can afford to not release new games until they're exactly how they want them because with Steam running the way it is they never have to worry about the money.

PC exclusives are not only financially unsound, but your premise that we would see benefits as a result is flawed for that reason. The people who are showing benefits by being PC exclusive have other means of income supporting their business.

The problem with your argument here and elsewhere is that your opinion is often wrong.

Which is why you were able to formulate such a well-thought out and verbose rebuttal to it?

<_<

[Amberion]

Mildiner wrote...

First off, I have nothing against consoles; please don't turn this into a console VS PC flame thread.

This is more about a cycle of logic that my brain has been working around to recently:

1) Developer spends time to make a good game that gets released and scores good reviews. 
2) Gamer enthusiasts buy the game based on reviews and said game becomes a "hit"
3) Publisher notes the success of first game and pushes for a sequel
4) Publisher pours money into the sequel in the form of advertising and promotion but share holders expect a quick return on their investment and so development time is cut
5) Sequel is released, goes mainstream due to advertising and, if good enough, escalates the franchise even further cycling back to 3) with even less time and more money on the line for the next version

So it seems to me that becoming a hit and gaining widespread acclaim is about the worst thing that can happen to a game series as has apparently happened to ME much to my dismay. The only way I can see to avoid this happening in future is to go with PC exclusives since most big publishers do not consider them worthy of massive ad compaigns due to the large drop in potential customers.

At the moment the best example of this is the Witcher 2 which has recently updated on Steam for me (a 10GB update which CD Projeckt released FREE) and has apparently turned a brilliant game into a nearly perfect one. Once I have finished my latest run of ME2 I plan to fire it back up and I may never come back to ME again.

PC gamers also have the small, independent developers releasing games on Steam which are the only source of truly original work I see these days. I worry about the console market because it has virtually none of this.

For these reasons I think I will be avoiding console ports from now on, but I hold no ill will toward the console market and will keep my fingers crossed that something comes along to break the cycle for them.

You are operating under the assumption that development time on sequels is always cut to appease shareholders, which is not necessarily true. You're also assuming that PC - only titles are immune to your speculative 'development time cuts', and you make an erroneous connection between massive ad campaigns and the popularity of a product, and assume that PC titles do not have massive ad campaigns.

Generally, good responsible producers do not short-sell their products. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. It's not a good idea, and any responsible CEO adopts a hands off aproach on a developer or project that they know is working well for them.

Is it too much to assume that if a game is popular, it might actually be good?

[AkiKishi]

abaris wrote...

voteDC wrote...

Sorry for the mini-rant there. The problem with PC gaming is that publishers see it as a 'pirates paradise', after all Ubisoft said not too long ago that they weren't releasing I Am Alive on the PC because people would just pirate it.

That argument doesn't hold water because console titles are also pirated.

The real reason for publishing console only is probably the lower development costs of not having to port or adapt.

As I pointed out in one of your other replies the difference is that the console market has enough casuals to absorb the loss. The PC market does not.

Pirating console games is a lot more difficult and well beyond the casual market. And it's also a huge hassle.

[element eater]

demon souls and dark souls are console exclusive and they are much better then most pc games

best just to be wary about what you buy and make sure it isnt a lazy cross platfiorm experiance

Modifié par element eater, 27 avril 2012 - 05:26 .

[Zcorck]

element eater wrote...

demon souls and dark souls are console exclusive abd they are much better then most pc games

Pretty sure they are better than most games in general.

[Atakuma]

Zcorck wrote...

element eater wrote...

demon souls and dark souls are console exclusive abd they are much better then most pc games

Pretty sure they are better than most games in general.

No, they are actually pretty lousy games that would be ignored if not for their difficulty.

[Arsenic Touch]

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.

As if people didn't need any more proof that you're a troll. That is just hilarious.

[Naughty Bear]

Obviously PC's are the superior gaming platform, modding alone beats any console out now. The PC is more than just a gaming platform, it is also a flexible tool for porn, news, social networking, moddind and games.

Along with the ability to upgrade your PC when you want, it's just a better experience but you need a lot of $$$.

Your naive or just really stupid if you think console X is better than the PC, just wish i could afford a decent compooter, finally brought a Laptop that can actually play Doom 3 with everything max. Including full shadows.

[abaris]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Along with the ability to upgrade your PC when you want, it's just a better experience but you need a lot of $$$.

That's a wrong assumption.

You'd only need top of the line equipment if the applications and their requirements were moving at top speed. But they don't.

Personally I only invested about 300 Euros into the system I assembled in 2006.

[Mildiner]

Amberion wrote...

Mildiner wrote...

First off, I have nothing against consoles; please don't turn this into a console VS PC flame thread.

This is more about a cycle of logic that my brain has been working around to recently:

1) Developer spends time to make a good game that gets released and scores good reviews. 
2) Gamer enthusiasts buy the game based on reviews and said game becomes a "hit"
3) Publisher notes the success of first game and pushes for a sequel
4) Publisher pours money into the sequel in the form of advertising and promotion but share holders expect a quick return on their investment and so development time is cut
5) Sequel is released, goes mainstream due to advertising and, if good enough, escalates the franchise even further cycling back to 3) with even less time and more money on the line for the next version

So it seems to me that becoming a hit and gaining widespread acclaim is about the worst thing that can happen to a game series as has apparently happened to ME much to my dismay. The only way I can see to avoid this happening in future is to go with PC exclusives since most big publishers do not consider them worthy of massive ad compaigns due to the large drop in potential customers.

At the moment the best example of this is the Witcher 2 which has recently updated on Steam for me (a 10GB update which CD Projeckt released FREE) and has apparently turned a brilliant game into a nearly perfect one. Once I have finished my latest run of ME2 I plan to fire it back up and I may never come back to ME again.

PC gamers also have the small, independent developers releasing games on Steam which are the only source of truly original work I see these days. I worry about the console market because it has virtually none of this.

For these reasons I think I will be avoiding console ports from now on, but I hold no ill will toward the console market and will keep my fingers crossed that something comes along to break the cycle for them.

You are operating under the assumption that development time on sequels is always cut to appease shareholders, which is not necessarily true. You're also assuming that PC - only titles are immune to your speculative 'development time cuts', and you make an erroneous connection between massive ad campaigns and the popularity of a product, and assume that PC titles do not have massive ad campaigns.

Generally, good responsible producers do not short-sell their products. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. It's not a good idea, and any responsible CEO adopts a hands off aproach on a developer or project that they know is working well for them.

Is it too much to assume that if a game is popular, it might actually be good?

Of course not, such a generalisation would be daft. All I was saying is that, as a franchise, it is very difficult for subsequent games to maintain their quality once they become too hyped and widespread.

My proposal was simply that PC only games are less likely to suffer from this since they don't get hyped as much. While we are on the subject I can't recall too many PC only games that have been advertised on UK television (not including Sky because I don't have it).

That said, you make some very valid points and I thank you for taking the time to respond in such an intelligent way. As with most things, there are no absolutes and, as such, I do not think we can argue in specifics, only very general statements are valid.

[AkiKishi]

Mildiner wrote...
Of course not, such a generalisation would be daft. All I was saying is that, as a franchise, it is very difficult for subsequent games to maintain their quality once they become too hyped and widespread.

My proposal was simply that PC only games are less likely to suffer from this since they don't get hyped as much. While we are on the subject I can't recall too many PC only games that have been advertised on UK television (not including Sky because I don't have it).

That said, you make some very valid points and I thank you for taking the time to respond in such an intelligent way. As with most things, there are no absolutes and, as such, I do not think we can argue in specifics, only very general statements are valid.

Most stores don't even carry PC games anymore. I'm hoping for a D3 advertisement at least.

The reason I quit PC gaming is there were not enough games worth getting. Shelling out 3k for something you only played 2 or 3 games a year on was a completely stupid to me.