61 réponses à ce sujet

[Faz432]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while, are consoles holding back or limiting the potential of games being developed?

Logically you have to think YES, as the Xbox 360 and PS3 are now 5 year old hardware and with no plans for MS or Sony to release new consoles they're aging. So when developers are planning a new game like DA2 or ME3 they must have to think "we would love to do this or that BUT the hardware restrictions of the Xbox or PS3..." Whereas with PC development they can plan to develop a game to the full extents of todays hardware.

So are they?

Modifié par Faz432, 27 mars 2010 - 01:36 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Costs are.

[Beetgreen]

If it bothers PC gamers that consoles are holding back development of games, perhaps PC gamers should prove to the industry that they're worth investing in. You could start by actually buying games.

[Loerwyn]

No, I don't think they are.

PC games have to cater to a variety of specifications whereas console games have to cater to a small set of hardware revisions. The 360 and PS3 would likely be in the mid to mid-high quality of a PC game, and the PC game would have to cater from low to high, if that makes sense. If they didn't do this, they'd cut out a lot of buyers.

What I think is holding back PC development is the small uptake of blu-ray drives (blu-ray = more space = more content), the rareness of solid state drives (they read/write faster than a conventional HDD) and the fact a lot of developers aren't willing to cut out single-core just yet.

Console games tend to... affect PC development in a few ways, not necessarily bad. Some games are clearly designed to use a controller (GTA, IMHO, is best with a controller) and others are best with a keyboard and mouse (FPS games are better with keyboard and mouse; the level of accuracy a mouse gives you can be insane. Shadowrun for the 360/PC is a good example of what I mean. RTS and RPGs tend to be better on the PC too).

What I wish developers would also do is cut down on cross-platform. Make PC games for PCs, make console games for consoles. Don't give us each other's games. Except Fable 2. We want that

[Merci357]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Make PC games for PCs, make console games for consoles. Don't give us each other's games. Except Fable 2. We want that

Uhm, there won't be that many games left for the PCs then, certainly no ME, no ME2, no Jade Empire... you sure you want that? :\\

[SithLordExarKun]

Beetgreen wrote...

If it bothers PC gamers that consoles are holding back development of games, perhaps PC gamers should prove to the industry that they're worth investing in. You could start by actually buying games.

Riight because every PC gamer is a pirate....

[Arbiter Libera]

Holding it back? Not really, but they sure have directed it's course during the last 2 console generations, although that could be easily accredited to people and gaming going mainstream. Simple is accessible, hence, it's mainstream... and mainstream means more money.

[Surango]

Yes and no. The PS3 and xbox360 are standardized whereas there are thousands, if not millions, of possible PC hardware configurations. Couple that in with software the user already has on their computer and developers have to take a LOT of things into account for PC gaming. They know what kind of hardware in son the consoles.

Though in some aspects, you're right. If they choose to make games for all three, it's actually better to do the consoles first then the computers. Why? You said it yourself: they have the lowest hardware capabilities. After they are finished with them, it would be a little easier to scale the graphics up instead of trivializing them. Here is where you would lay out your options for computer gamers: low/medium for the casual gamer and high for the hardcore folks with the PCs made for gaming.

Modifié par Surango, 26 mars 2010 - 03:05 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

The GTA games were better on PC, I don't mind cross platform porting as long as they get it right.

[Cascadus]

Beetgreen wrote...

If it bothers PC gamers that consoles are holding back development of games, perhaps PC gamers should prove to the industry that they're worth investing in. You could start by actually buying games.

Here's a nice post from the ever-productive Ecael:

Ecael wrote...

Top 10 Most Pirated Games of 2008 (BitTorrent downloads)
1 Spore (1,700,000) (Sept. 2008)
2 The Sims 2 (1,150,000) (Sept. 2004)
3 Assassins Creed (1,070,000) (Nov. 2007)
4 Crysis (940,000) (Nov. 2007)
5 Command & Conquer 3 (860,000) (Mar. 2007)
6 Call of Duty 4 (830,000) (Nov. 2007)
7 GTA San Andreas (740,000) (Jun. 2005)
8 Fallout 3 (645,000) (Oct. 2008)
9 Far Cry 2 (585,000) (Oct. 2008)
10 Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 (470,000) (Oct. 2008)

Top 20 Best Selling PC Games of 2008 (retail only)
1. World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
2. Spore
3. World of Warcraft: Battle Chest
4. Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures
5. Warhammer Online: Age Of Reckoning
6. Call Of Duty 4
7. The Sims 2 Double Deluxe
8. World Of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King Collector's Edition
9. Fallout 3
10. World Of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
11. Call Of Duty: World At War
12. The Sims 2 FreeTime
13. World Of Warcraft
14. Sins Of A Solar Empire
15. Warcraft III Battle Chest
16. The Sims 2 Apartment Life
17. Crysis
18. Left 4 Dead
19. Diablo Battle Chest
20. The Orange Box

Three other things to note:
-The
sales list does NOT include digital distribution (Steam, Direct2Drive),
as most of those market sites do not release their sales information.
This is the easiest method of obtaining a game for a consumer and also
the biggest profit margin for developers (win-win)
-MMORPGs fill up about half the list. Sure, private servers exist, but the full experience is never there.
-Some
speculate that although Blizzard is responsible for much of PC gaming's
success, World of Warcraft is partly responsible drawing PC sales away
from other, less addicting games. Still, almost all WoW players did not
pirate that game.

Since this is an EA forum (and EA has been
known to both include strict DRM and then take it out after
complaints), let's focus on The Sims 2 and Spore. Both games are made
by EA Maxis and had very strict DRM. Yet, pirates still cracked it and
it still became the best selling games of 2008 (non-MMORPG) despite being the most pirated games of 2008.
EA later removed the DRM in order to appease customers that were
indignant over being treated like a criminal for buying the game.

Regardless, I don't believe consoles are holding back game development, but I do believe it's PC gaming that pushes the technology further. New graphic cards, processors, DirectX, sound cards, technology. PC is a testing bed, a melting pot of technology that later consoles will institute.

Modifié par Cascadus, 26 mars 2010 - 03:17 .

[Loerwyn]

Merci357 wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Make PC games for PCs, make console games for consoles. Don't give us each other's games. Except Fable 2. We want that

Uhm, there won't be that many games left for the PCs then, certainly no ME, no ME2, no Jade Empire... you sure you want that? :\\\\\\\\

BioWare and Bethesda are unusual in that their games work well (in a gameplay sense, and sell well) on both platforms. Personally I had to give up with Jade Empire as the controls didn't work in my favour (I'm sure I'd enjoy it more with a controllers), but I do love Mass Effect 1 and 2. I have to say though, that you did find a bit of a flaw in my argument. Some games do work brilliantly across all platforms - Just look at Trine for example. It's a good game and whilst I've only played the PC version, I can see it working well on the PS3 or 360 (which I believe it's been released on)
I was thinking more about when a game is brought across or very poorly ported for the PC (Alone in the Dark 5 is my shining example for this). One of the devs of a fairly "top" studio, the guys who made Just Cause 2, has stated that PC gamers and console gamers are different, and I cannot disagree with him. People who play the Wii would tend to enjoy different games to those who play a PC, and they're often different to those who play on a DS.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 26 mars 2010 - 03:29 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Ehhh, that is an overgeneralization. The PC has a big market in casual puzzle games like what Popcap puts out and those same kind of game ideas are successful on consoles. The one thing about PC games is that they have the potential to reach a larger market than console games because more people use computers than say a PSP.

[Mr.Skar]

Holding back? No. Shaping? Yes. Most games that want to make a good deal of money try for a cross platform deal, and with the cost of these things it isn't really surprising (things like SC2 are exceptions, hell most of the RTS genre is an exception) that the developers and publishers want more bang for their buck. I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing really, more people playing a given game means that developer is around longer.

Accessability is not a bad thing, streamlining is not necessarily a bad thing. Lazy game design and ****** poor gameplay are, and those two aren't specific to any one platform.

Modifié par Mr.Skar, 26 mars 2010 - 04:37 .

[Faz432]

My concern is that while the technology in the current Consoles is stagnant, PC hardware technology practically doubles every year and by the time games like ME3 or DA2 come out, the technology in the Consoles could very well be a decade old.

So with that in mind will the games be reaching their full potential and PC gamers be getting the full/best experience possible?

Modifié par Faz432, 26 mars 2010 - 05:06 .

[ObserverStatus]

Mr.Skar wrote...

Holding back? No. Shaping? Yes. Most games that want to make a good deal of money try for a cross platform deal, and with the cost of these things it isn't really surprising (things like SC2 are exceptions, hell most of the RTS genre is an exception) that the developers and publishers want more bang for their buck. I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing really, more people playing a given game means that developer is around longer.

Accessability is not a bad thing, streamlining is not necessarily a bad thing. Lazy game design and ****** poor gameplay are, and those two aren't specific to any one platform.

Wonder how the new playstation pii is going to shape the market.

[Mr.Skar]

Not certain, and I don't have very high hopes for it (not convinced motion control is all that great). Seems like Sony had a "Me too!" moment with that one.

[ietxdpierce]

you want to know the real thing holding back game development? the economy. Especially where PC games are concerned. every xbox 360 in theory should play games like Dragon Age Origins, but Someone could have a brand new computer they spent $500 on, and still need a $100 graphics card to play it.

[Faz432]

ietxdpierce wrote...

you want to know the real thing holding back game development? the economy. Especially where PC games are concerned. every xbox 360 in theory should play games like Dragon Age Origins, but Someone could have a brand new computer they spent $500 on, and still need a $100 graphics card to play it.

That statement is incorrect, I could build a PC for £500 that would blitz DA:O, in fact I could probably do it for £300.

Whether it could or couldn't isn't the discussion here, the topic is whether consoles are holding back game development. So whether or not Xbox 360 or PS3 are able to play current games, what about games 1 or 2 years down the line? are they bottle-necking the potential?

Modifié par Faz432, 27 mars 2010 - 12:53 .

[Fexelea]

I don't think they are at all.



Oversimplifying greatly: The console market expanded the industry, allowing for the expansion of the developing and publishing houses to make the investement in AAA titles and push the limits of every hardware (even if the console hardware is inferior to PC).



Console players wouldn't suddendly become PC players, and most where not PC players to start with, so you would have to produce titles with the sales prospect of only the current PC market in mind: that means you can have no more than 2 major titles per year with a variety of small-house games in the background... but this is not an attractive model to big companies and investors, therefore budgets and with it salaries shrink, creating the gaming market of the 80s all over again.



The technical aspects of developments are just a part of what makes a game. The hype and marketing, the music and acting, the art and story are equally important aspects that would be impacted by a smaller industry, just by the limiting monetary backing and prospective reward for developer/publisher.



What IS holding back game development, or more precisely probably hurting game development, is the so-called "casual" gamer as Nintendo invented them with the Wii. People who do not play what the "hardcores" identify as games, but have suddendly been lumped with as and are now considered more profitable, since they are an easy sell of any junk that has a "burn calories!" or "play with grandma!" on the side. Good games on the Wii aside, the concept that this "new" audience introduced to the games industry is scary: Why would you want to spend 38 million dollars, 3 years of development and intensive marketing developing a fantastic AAA title to get a 25% profit margin, if you can spend 1 million dollars and 1 year of development to make 50% profit margin? - scary indeed -

[Panderfringe]

Anyone who says anything other than an emphatic "no" should be slapped repeatedly until their opinion changes.

[Cascadus]

Fexelea wrote...

I don't think they are at all.

Oversimplifying greatly: The console market expanded the industry, allowing for the expansion of the developing and publishing houses to make the investement in AAA titles and push the limits of every hardware (even if the console hardware is inferior to PC).

Console players wouldn't suddendly become PC players, and most where not PC players to start with, so you would have to produce titles with the sales prospect of only the current PC market in mind: that means you can have no more than 2 major titles per year with a variety of small-house games in the background... but this is not an attractive model to big companies and investors, therefore budgets and with it salaries shrink, creating the gaming market of the 80s all over again.

The technical aspects of developments are just a part of what makes a game. The hype and marketing, the music and acting, the art and story are equally important aspects that would be impacted by a smaller industry, just by the limiting monetary backing and prospective reward for developer/publisher.

What IS holding back game development, or more precisely probably hurting game development, is the so-called "casual" gamer as Nintendo invented them with the Wii. People who do not play what the "hardcores" identify as games, but have suddendly been lumped with as and are now considered more profitable, since they are an easy sell of any junk that has a "burn calories!" or "play with grandma!" on the side. Good games on the Wii aside, the concept that this "new" audience introduced to the games industry is scary: Why would you want to spend 38 million dollars, 3 years of development and intensive marketing developing a fantastic AAA title to get a 25% profit margin, if you can spend 1 million dollars and 1 year of development to make 50% profit margin? - scary indeed -

Say what you will about Nintendo (at least NoA, because NoJ is still awesome), but don't pretend they weren't the ones who finally made gaming mainstream and socially acceptable.

Modifié par Cascadus, 27 mars 2010 - 04:31 .

[Fexelea]

@Cascadus
That is not what I said at all and I do not belive they are the ones that made that possible. "Gaming" as in playing Halo/MMOs/or Ninja Gaiden being more or less acceptable has NOTHING to do with Nintendo. The Wii is sold as a "gaming" machine to people who don't know what games are.

Modifié par Fexelea, 27 mars 2010 - 04:34 .

[Cascadus]

Well, don't worry, because the Wii has the lowest software attach rate out of all the three main consoles. And just because you see a lot of shovelware, it doesn't mean it's selling well. It just means said shovelware is cheap enough to load onto the Wii's library en masse.
It's still depressing to see Carnival Games overtake MadWorld or No More Heroes though.

Modifié par Cascadus, 27 mars 2010 - 04:49 .

[Surango]

There was a game for the wii that I played one time, turned me off to the entire system. Don't remember what it was called, but your weapons were a katana or a gun. I thought, as someone who knows about swords, it would be an interesting game. Sadly, I almost broke my friend's controller when I whirled it as I would my falchion.  Wound up growling at the box, grabbed a bokken, and went outside.

I really hope they never try to put a game like DA on the wii. That would sadden me greatly.