207 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

Fawx9 wrote...

Because it only really comes into play if the game isn't good anyways.

I'm not sure I buy that. Otherwise I don't think one of my favourite games, Street Fighter 4 (94 points on metacritic) would be one of the most pirated games for PC during the year it came out, yet selling only 10.000 copies world-wide compared to the PS3 version selling over 2 million and the Xbox360 version selling over 1.5 million. This was not only a great game by its own standards, it was especially outstanding for the PC which hadn't seen a quality fighting game release - much less with such a good port - for many years.

I'm not sure what makes a game buy-worthy in a pirate's eyes, but I don't think quality is the sole factor. There's probably analysts who work a ton trying to figure this out.

[grumpymooselion]

Honestly I'd attribute SF4's PC sales more to PC's just not being what most people seem to play fighting games on. It really doesn't say anything about PC gaming sales/pirating when you look at that particular game. If you want to see what pirating looks like on a game that's easily pirated, look at minecraft which saw PC high enough to pierce through the sun despite how easy it was to pirate.

There are multi-plat games that have sold better on the PC as well, Portal 2 coming to mind, and I had to look it up to be sure, but, provided the sales figures I found are accurate, it really did sell better on the PC. This is hardly the only instance of that too.

Still, I don't care what a game is developed for initially, as long as a game is well made for any platforms it is on. If it's made for the Console first? That's fine, as long as when a game is made for the PC that it is made well and handled with all the care and intelligence required. Dark Souls is a great example of how NOT to port a console game to the PC - the controls, graphical options, FOV and more are just all wrong. There are mods that fix Dark Souls for the PC, that put it all right, to the extent that even the mouse and keyboard controls are viable - so it can definitely be done - it's just a matter of the developer actually caring enough to make every version, for every platform, 'right'.

[Maverick827]

Next gen consoles will mitigate the throttle that consoles currently put on PC versions graphically, at least for a little while. I assume DA:I is being made for the next gen, or at the very least it's interested in being graphically impressive given the engine choice.

[D_Thoran]

Hopefully the idea that nex gen consoles will finally be using not only PC compatible hardware and architecture, but actual PC hardware and architecture, it will limit the suck factor that is inherent in a lot of current ports. As the consoles get smarter and move closer to PC's, maybe things will even out.

[Sanunes]

D_Thoran wrote...

Hopefully the idea that nex gen consoles will finally be using not only PC compatible hardware and architecture, but actual PC hardware and architecture, it will limit the suck factor that is inherent in a lot of current ports. As the consoles get smarter and move closer to PC's, maybe things will even out.

There is always going to be the "suck factor" unless they develop a new console for every major hardware improvement on the PC.  If I remember my eras correctly, when the 360 was first released the hardware it used was already considered to be "old".

[Fast Jimmy]

^

The same can be said of the next gen consoles already. 8 gig of RAM on the new XBox. Only 4G for the new PS3.

Consoles have to be designed with hardware that is pretty cheap roughly eighteen months before manufacturing starts. If it is cheap eighteen months before it ships, it is nearly obsolete before it even ships its first unit and quickly begins to be the limiting factor in terms of raw processing power from a game development standpoint. It's the nature of the beast. Unless a console comes out that costs $1000, it will always be years behind gaming rig PCs even from Day One.

The sooner PC players understand that, the sooner they can realize that no generation of consoles is ever going to guarantee PC ports are ever going to be as high fidelity as PC-only games. And the happier we all can be.

[TheBlackBaron]

EntropicAngel wrote...

^ furthermore, Sony already tried to have a cutting-edge console--the PS3. And it was very expensive for a console, and (I suspect, no actual facts here) lost sales as a result.

People buy consoles for reasons that essentially force them to be fairly basic.

FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS

Yeah, that hurt the PS3's sales just a bit. If I recall correctly, in the early days much of its sales were driven by people wanting a Blu-Ray player (which were very expensive at the time) than a gaming console. 

[cJohnOne]

It seems to me that to get a PC sales to Consoles sales to be equal you would have needed to sell over 500,000 in Online sales through EA's Origin which isn't very likely. And that would increase the total sales of DA2 from 2 milllion to 2.5 million. lol. Again not very likely.

[AlienWolf728]

lol @ console peasants.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlienWolf728 wrote...

lol @ console peasants.

lol@pcmaster race, spending hundreds if not thousands more on hardware and still getting console-level ports. 

[The Harmonizer]

With new consoles being PC's with fancy designs, ports SHOULD be a thing of the past. "consoles" are just using different hardware specs as with any other PC. Or am I missing something completely here?

[Gorguz]

Solmanian wrote...
"I'm a console player who is going to buy apc as soon as the next gen comes out"? What is the argument you're trying to make there?

I'm saying that I'm not one of those brainless consoles fanboys. It's easier to develope for computers, and consoles can't compete with pc. But if you say "we deserve more because we spend more money on hardware", then you're wrong.

Also the biggest pool of players is on the PC.

That'swhy i said BUYERS and not PLAYERS. The market is on consoles. If it is not there, then bioware wouldn't develope for consoles first. Even a 12 years old can get this, why can you not?

Modifié par Gorguz, 06 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The Harmonizer wrote...

With new consoles being PC's with fancy designs, ports SHOULD be a thing of the past. "consoles" are just using different hardware specs as with any other PC. Or am I missing something completely here?

The specs for the new consoles show that they are the equivalent of a mid-range 2011 gaming PC right now. While nothing to sneeze at, especially compared to the current console technology, they will be grossly outmatched by PCs by 2014, despite being just a year old. 

Its this way with every new console generation - a catch-up race to make low cost systems that still utilize some of the most cost-effective systems they can. The gap between PCs and this gen of consoles is even larger than last gen's, which means their shelf life before they make games that are totally under-utilized by PC players is even smaller.

Long story short - next gen consoles aren't going to make PC players happy very long, if they make them happy at all. But console players may really like them.

[Gorguz]

D_Thoran wrote...
Logic?  It's absolute garbage posts like this that ruin otherwise good threads.  Go away and let the grown ups talk.

Yes because it is logic to develope games for a target from which you gain less profit. And shs should reward those who spend thounsands of dollars to paly a game.
Really? That's your "mature" ideas? You are the big boy who can teach lessons to underages? Please, shut up. The op is pretentious garbage, and the thread is getting worst as you talk about "hardcore gamers" like you are one of them, while you are nothing but a casual who cares only about fancy graphic.

[Goneaviking]

Gorguz wrote...

D_Thoran wrote...
Logic?  It's absolute garbage posts like this that ruin otherwise good threads.  Go away and let the grown ups talk.

Yes because it is logic to develope games for a target from which you gain less profit. And shs should reward those who spend thounsands of dollars to paly a game.
Really? That's your "mature" ideas? You are the big boy who can teach lessons to underages? Please, shut up. The op is pretentious garbage, and the thread is getting worst as you talk about "hardcore gamers" like you are one of them, while you are nothing but a casual who cares only about fancy graphic.

Talking about his penis was probably a bad idea if you wanted to be taken seriously.

[Fallstar]

I have a PC and a 360, in fact I first played DAO on a 360. IMO DA2's combat was actually more suited to the 360 than the PC (other way round with DAO).

Yes, consoles result in lower quality games being made for the time than what could be made for the average PC. But consoles also make up a large part of the gaming audience, therefore providing a lot of the funding for the majority of games.

People who buy consoles wouldn't buy PCs if consoles weren't around - otherwise they'd buy a PC in the first place. I don't know about you, but to me it seems that losing the console gaming audience would kill triple A quality games.

[chesschamp]

So much of this degraded into consoles vs PC, which is such an awful debate. There are so many reasons someone would choose one or the other. Regardless, none of that is relevant here. The OP is suggesting that games should be developed first for the PC to avoid crappy ports. Just like console players would be upset about a game performing like ****, PC gamers are too (though it's usually motivated by a game being unplayable due to UI or unwieldy controls)--and much more frequently as of late. That being said, I don't know that the solution is to develop for PC "first," but to have a team that actually understands the PC as a platform. The dichotomy of gamers expect their game to perform within certain parameters on their platform, some of which can even be genre-dependent. Having a developer that understands this is the most important element to success of ports, as dirty a word as it's become in the gaming world.

Modifié par chesschamp, 06 mars 2013 - 11:06 .

[Nerevar-as]

DuskWarden wrote...

I have a PC and a 360, in fact I first played DAO on a 360. IMO DA2's combat was actually more suited to the 360 than the PC (other way round with DAO).

Yes, consoles result in lower quality games being made for the time than what could be made for the average PC. But consoles also make up a large part of the gaming audience, therefore providing a lot of the funding for the majority of games.

People who buy consoles wouldn't buy PCs if consoles weren't around - otherwise they'd buy a PC in the first place. I don't know about you, but to me it seems that losing the console gaming audience would kill triple A quality games.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

And I´d say PS3 players should also be annoyed. AFAIK, usually it´s everybody down to the 360, instead of playing to each system´s strenghts.

[Sanunes]

chesschamp wrote...

So much of this degraded into consoles vs PC, which is such an awful debate. There are so many reasons someone would choose one or the other. Regardless, none of that is relevant here. The OP is suggesting that games should be developed first for the PC to avoid crappy ports. Just like console players would be upset about a game performing like ****, PC gamers are too (though it's usually motivated by a game being unplayable due to UI or unwieldy controls)--and much more frequently as of late. That being said, I don't know that the solution is to develop for PC "first," but to have a team that actually understands the PC as a platform. The dichotomy of gamers expect their game to perform within certain parameters on their platform, some of which can even be genre-dependent. Having a developer that understands this is the most important element to success of ports, as dirty a word as it's become in the gaming world.

Saying they should develop for the PC first over the console is itself a console vs PC debate topic.  To my understanding they develop for all systems that will be running the game at the same time, they just use the weakest hardware as their baseline, which might even be a low-end PC.

If you want to see what happens when a game is designed (at least in my opinion) for the PC first look at the fiasco around Skyrim, it took around a year after launch to get the PS3 version into what most people will consider a playable state, there are still many issues in the game, but at least the people that bought the game a year eariler can finally play it.

[Sanunes]

Nerevar-as wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

I have a PC and a 360, in fact I first played DAO on a 360. IMO DA2's combat was actually more suited to the 360 than the PC (other way round with DAO).

Yes, consoles result in lower quality games being made for the time than what could be made for the average PC. But consoles also make up a large part of the gaming audience, therefore providing a lot of the funding for the majority of games.

People who buy consoles wouldn't buy PCs if consoles weren't around - otherwise they'd buy a PC in the first place. I don't know about you, but to me it seems that losing the console gaming audience would kill triple A quality games.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

And I´d say PS3 players should also be annoyed. AFAIK, usually it´s everybody down to the 360, instead of playing to each system´s strenghts.

As I mentioned in my other post they look for commonalities in all three systems and design so every console can run it, because otherwise it becomes like a Wii version of the game which people make into a bad version of the game compared to the others.  Its why the Connect or Move never seemed to catch on because it would take developing for them and the normal controllers.

The reason why it seems they developed for the 360 is because it was released first and on the weakest hardware.

[wsandista]

AlienWolf728 wrote...

lol @ console peasants.

Laugh all you want, the Revolution is here!

https://encrypted-tb...cpKZyJ2JfKdQF9A

*Doesn't care because he will be busy with Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland 2*

[DPSSOC]

D_Thoran wrote...

For this game to be sucessful it needs to be built and designed to utilize the power of our gaming PC's, not end up designed for consoles, next gen or not, and then the pc users get some crappy port where you can't even use keybinding, among other travesties.   (ala dungeon siege 3)

This type of game (especially the 3rd installment) needs to be built on pc's period, and ported to consoles.  Did I say that?  Those of us who have spent thousands of dollars on our gaming rigs deserve the best that the frostbite 2 engine can offer, not a dumbed down console port.

agree?  disagree?

People who spend thousands of dollars on entertainment deserve a lot of things, but it'd be rude and unkind to say them and I'd probably get banned so I'll refrain.  I'd actually rather Bioware develop each game separately.  Not story wise or anything but build each game for the system it's going to be on.  Using current gen consoles; build the 360 version to best utilize the systems capabilities, same with PS3, WiiU if you want to go that route and PC.  I can't help but feel they'd save a lot of time, energy, and stress if instead of building a square peg and trying to hammer it best they can into 3+ different holes they just made a few different pegs.

[Sanunes]

DPSSOC wrote..
People who spend thousands of dollars on entertainment deserve a lot of things, but it'd be rude and unkind to say them and I'd probably get banned so I'll refrain.  I'd actually rather Bioware develop each game separately.  Not story wise or anything but build each game for the system it's going to be on.  Using current gen consoles; build the 360 version to best utilize the systems capabilities, same with PS3, WiiU if you want to go that route and PC.  I can't help but feel they'd save a lot of time, energy, and stress if instead of building a square peg and trying to hammer it best they can into 3+ different holes they just made a few different pegs.

They don't try and fit the game to fit into those different holes, the way it works is they line up all those different shaped holes and make a custom peg that fits into all three at the same time.  The way I believe games work is that the engine is what communicates to the platform and the games communicate with the engine.  An example is Mass Effect 3, they had to remove the holster animation from the game because of memory requirements now they just opened up the game and removed it from all three and testing the one unified game they were able to test and try to make sure there wasn't any other problems.  Now if it was left on the PC version since people have generally more memory and system resources the next change they would have to test twice because they need to make sure it would work on the console version and then the PC version.  Leaving a bigger chance for issues to slip through.

Modifié par Sanunes, 07 mars 2013 - 04:55 .