65 réponses à ce sujet

[Livemmo]

Considering the 360 is now 5 years old and the hardware is starting to look a bit outdated compared to newer video cards and cpus that computer users can upgrade to, are video game consoles holding game development back? The potential that these newer cards have along with the speed of the cpus now available why arent we seeing more realistic game engines being made? Im just curious on this and how long companies like msoft and sony think their dated machine will actually live.

[Seagloom]

In my opinion? Yes. I'm sure some companies here and there will gleefully create an engine intended to run on high end hardware. A few years back we had Crysis, for instance. Most publishers are unwilling to put all their effort into a PC exclusive game, however. It makes a lot more financial sense to release a game across the PC, 360, and PS3. Creating a top notch game that pushes graphics to the limit on a modern computer would force developers to pare it down, perhaps drastically, in a console port.

It's a lot easier to start off with the 360, then make minor visual adjustments on PS3 and PC. Dragon Age is an odd exception in that it is cross platform but made as a PC game first. Of course, Dragon Age isn't exactly a graphics powerhouse either.

Modifié par Seagloom, 01 février 2010 - 01:20 .

[Akimb0]

Simple answer: Yes.

I could write a 10,000 word essay on why consoles are ruining the game market, especially for PC users. However it would be wasted breath. Just look at DA:O and ME2 as examples of how console development (or rather lack of) is ruining the PC gaming market. Simple games, on an old game engine = easy money. That's not to say old tech is to blame, it's more the audience the games are being developed for.

Modifié par Akimb0, 01 février 2010 - 01:48 .

[Jonp382]

Consoles aren't really holding back game development that much. Developers and consumers are the real problem. Consumer wants crap, so developer feeds them more crap. Or developer is just bad. Lots of both.

[Akimb0]

Jonp382 wrote...

Consoles aren't really holding back game development that much. Developers and consumers are the real problem. Consumer wants crap, so developer feeds them more crap. Or developer is just bad. Lots of both.

That's also true. It's refreshing to see some sense spoken.

[The Chosen Predator]

I normally stay out of threads like this but I am glad these games are coming out for console, otherwise I'd never be able to experience half of them, when I do get a nice computer I'll most likely get back into PC gaming but right now I am glad it's available on different formats, I really don't have any sort of bitterness towards console gamers like most do.

[the_one_54321]

I also think consoles are holding back game development, but it's more along these lines:

Jonp382 wrote...
Consoles aren't really holding back game development that much. Developers and consumers are the real problem. Consumer wants crap, so developer feeds them more crap. Or developer is just bad. Lots of both.

The consoles really just fascilitate this kind of thing.

[elmephd1]

No, consoles aren't holding game development back (unless the only thing you care about is graphics). Even at the standard of the current gen consoles, the costs to produce AAA games are most likely huge enough as it is.



In fact if anything consoles are doing the opposite. Bear with me:-

1) Same standard hardware - developers become more aquainted with it which cuts costs and decrease issues.

2) With each leap in graphics, production costs will go up and this forces developers to pander to the mainstream market otherwise they won't get their money back.

3) Developers will get swamped or swallowed up by the larger publishers because they're the only ones who can afford the costs.

4) As both a PC and console gamer I will usually always pick the console version (unless it's RTS or a game that really does play far better with a mouse). Reasons for doing so are as follows.

a) No compatability issues.

I don't have to constantly spend money to keep up with latest hardware. That means I have more money to spend on games.

[the_one_54321]

I don't think upgrading your rig once a year or less qualifies as "constantly spending money." And if you really are "constantly spending money" to keep things on the cutting edge, I believe the phrase "you're doing it wrong" is applicable.

[Layn]

imho consoles are an absolute must for the evolution of game development.

with PCs devs can always make better graphics and tell gamers all the time "yeah you need a better system".  This is bad, since people can't keep buying better systems. (thankfully Blizzard always makes performance-light games, and Valve keeps using the source engine, which might be heavier now than when Half life 2, but still can be played on the majority of systems)

Consoles keeps performance needs a bit in check (though if it is badly optimised, it still will be pretty heavy). It also shifts the focus from getting the bestest graphics ever to gameplay, story etc. and also forces Devs to get creative on how to make a game look good without relying on sheer processing power.

however i'm hating how console gaming has infected pc gaming. now instead of using for PC the systems strengths, it gets streamlined simplified games which are better suited to be played on a couch with a gamepad.

i do still prefer gaming on PC and only replace it every 4-5 years, with a minor upgrade during that time

Modifié par Crrash, 01 février 2010 - 03:56 .

[chiliztri]

Consoles, IMO, encourage stagnation in the market. I don't see anything about consoles to be "groundbreaking". I just see the same things recycled and recirculated through the console market. Console games are also more expensive, and for a system that never gets faster, more powerful, and is forever stuck with the same specs it had 5 years ago.



PC's are constantly improving and getting better. It promotes innovation and improvement, not stagnation and redundancy.



As for upgrading constantly...I haven't upgraded in 2 years, and I can play most recent games on High settings.

[elmephd1]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't think upgrading your rig once a year or less qualifies as "constantly spending money." And if you really are "constantly spending money" to keep things on the cutting edge, I believe the phrase "you're doing it wrong" is applicable.

It may not be constantly, but it is still far too often. Not everyone wants to go through the hassle or waste their money when they'll have to do it again the year after.

Far easier and cheaper to stick with the same console for 5 years.

[Livemmo]

I'm just curious how much longer these companies plan to keep their current gen consoles running. We're already 5 years into the 360 and havent even heard any word on a new gen console from anyone. I'm not sure, but if we're still using the same gen consoles in 5 more years, I would call that holding the industry back?

I'm also extremely upset with the current lack of pc gaming support. It really does seem that everything is being made for the consoles and then ported to the pc ..like we're some kind of red headed step child? I grew up playing consoles, but I also love what pc gaming used to be. Sure piracy is an issue, but it's not as big as these companies are making it out to be. It's more like an excuse they chose to use when people don't buy their cookie cutter crap that doesnt deserve to be purchased.

Modifié par Livemmo, 01 février 2010 - 04:37 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

elmephd1 wrote...
Far easier and cheaper to stick with the same console for 5 years.

+ slightly more expensive games
+ 1 TV set
+ 1 PC because there are some things that your console just cannot do.

I'm not convinced consoles really are cheaper.
But who am I to judge, I was biased from the beginning.

[Tallin Harperson]

Is console hardware ruining PC gaming? No. Is it hurting hardware manufacturers profit margins? Possibly.

Truthfully, I like to have a good PC, but I just get tired of the constant advances that do little more than increase the number of pixels you can have on screen at one time doing more things that it's more and more likely you won't even notice. Really, PC games were great before these advances came along, and it's not the latest flash that makes me want to play a game. I've played three excellent games on consoles that were released in the last three months: two of them BioWare games, of course, and Assassin's Creed II. Sometimes the controls get simplified for PC, sure, when it's a port or simultaneous release, but since I remember the days when computers had a controller with a button and a stick for playing games, I don't think it's such a terrible thing. Sure, I think PC games should have the opportunity to add hot keys if the game requires it, but I don't see the need for using 15 keys just because they're available, when it could just as easily use three.

Whatever. What I'm trying to say is: the games look pretty great these days, and there are still games that suck, just as there has always been. Still, the last few months has certainly proved to me that good games are still being made. If the question is whether consoles have changed PC gaming, then yes , I suppose they probably have. Though, really, the more computers there are that can play PC games, the greater available market share. PC game companies have always tried to get their games to run on as old hardware as possible. That's nothing new. They add some flash for the newer computers, but they still want to get their game to the broadest possible audience. I don't see how consoles have really changed that.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 01 février 2010 - 04:59 .

[the_one_54321]

Why is this conversation mostly centered around graphics? The look of a game is only one part of the whole. There are much more important things that make a game great. Things that are greatly impacted by the "consumer eats up crap, so developer produces crap" equation.

[Little Paw]

elmephd1 wrote...

No, consoles aren't holding game development back (unless the only thing you care about is graphics). Even at the standard of the current gen consoles, the costs to produce AAA games are most likely huge enough as it is.

In fact if anything consoles are doing the opposite. Bear with me:-
1) Same standard hardware - developers become more aquainted with it which cuts costs and decrease issues.
2) With each leap in graphics, production costs will go up and this forces developers to pander to the mainstream market otherwise they won't get their money back.
3) Developers will get swamped or swallowed up by the larger publishers because they're the only ones who can afford the costs.
4) As both a PC and console gamer I will usually always pick the console version (unless it's RTS or a game that really does play far better with a mouse). Reasons for doing so are as follows.
a) No compatability issues.
I don't have to constantly spend money to keep up with latest hardware. That means I have more money to spend on games.

This is thoughtful, but if you pick the console over PC you are not a PC gamer.
You play games on a PC maybe, but you are not a PC gamer.
This thread I created has some similar idea to this one...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/13/index/805289/1

[Seagloom]

I centered my post around graphics because the opening post seemed to focus on that aspect of game development. Tackling this subject as a whole, however, changes my stance slightly. In that case I see the gaming industry suffering for a multitude of a reasons, and consoles are not entirely at fault even if much of the damage occurring can be blamed on them.

I could go into a lengthy wall of text on this, but I'm pressed for time. Suffice it to say the above mentioned "consumer eats up crap, so developer produces crap" is one issue, as is sequelitis which also ties into that, DLC, and other things on the business side of game production. I don't consider myself any sort of authority on this topic however. It's probably a good thing my post ends here.

Modifié par Seagloom, 01 février 2010 - 06:53 .

[fairandbalancedfan]

PC's are constantly improving and getting better. It promotes innovation and improvement, not stagnation and redundancy.

Console games are more expensive, you have to buy a console. Financially, PC games makes more sense. But there must be something that is persuading game devs to make games for consoles too. Also it's not like if the consoles are a new thing. They have been around for a long time too.

[Little Paw]

fairandbalancedfan wrote...

PC's are constantly improving and getting better. It promotes innovation and improvement, not stagnation and redundancy.

Console games are more expensive, you have to buy a console. Financially, PC games makes more sense. But there must be something that is persuading game devs to make games for consoles too. Also it's not like if the consoles are a new thing. They have been around for a long time too.

I think what is persuading developers to go console is a few things:

• A console is a static machine. PCs all have different specs. Consoles are easier to develop for.
• More casual gamers play console games.
• When people gift, they tend to look for console games.
• Gaming stores are pretty much completely dedicated to consoles
• Console games can be traded in - more of a boon to the gaming store, but I am sure they support developers creating games for consoles more than PC.
• The real shake up will be the next time the consoles all get upgraded. Some PC owners will then have to get machines that can keep up with the next generation of consoles. Of course, some PC gamers already have killer machines. I am at the point where I would probabl yhave to get another PC or upgrade if the consoles change. Not a big deal.

[Godak]

Little Paw wrote...

This is thoughtful, but if you pick the console over PC you are not a PC gamer.
You play games on a PC maybe, but you are not a PC gamer.

Bullsh!t.

There are only gamers. As soon as you try to seperate them into groups, you begin alienating yourself.

I play RTSes on PCs, and RPGs on consoles, btw.

[Little Paw]

I think playing a video game at home, alone, is the definition of alienation.

Playing co-op, or online with people, is partnered alienation.

;-)

[Godak]

Little Paw wrote...

I think playing a video game at home, alone, is the definition of alienation.
Playing co-op, or online with people, is partnered alienation.
;-)

Eh, thats just a reputation gamers have.

Short, fat, recluses who have no social or linguistic skills beyond "More Cheetos!"

[Little Paw]

I think that reputation is long gone actually, but gaming can still be quite anti-social and lead to Vitamin D deficiency.

[Godak]

Little Paw wrote...

I think that reputation is long gone actually, but gaming can still be quite anti-social and lead to Vitamin D deficiency.

If you mention that you play games on anything other than a Wii, weird, awkard looks will find you.