5 developers who still love PC gamers

[minmaster]

meh the only one who belongs on that list is blizzard.

 

[Elcs]

Blizzard fully deserves to be there for the consistency of high quality PC games that they bring through. They may be a bit slow in doing so but generally the games are of a standard above and beyond standard fare.

I am glad to see Bioware and Bethseda on the list too. Valve, although have not been fantastic for me games-wise, have been a huge supporter of my PC gaming through Steam. Love it or hate it, it has been a forerunner for digital distribution and as any service does, has its advantages and disadvantages.

Extremely disappointed that the Developer I would consider to be at the forefront of PC Gaming standards is not listed on there, probably because it has not provided the world with an FPS or MMO, but the best RTS games this planet has seen since Dune 2/C&C Original.

I am of course talking about Relic. Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 1&2, Homeworld 1&2.... Various expansion packs for all 3... Few could argue that Relic actually care about shipping out a top quality game, immersive and enjoyable, well polished and often groundbreaking. If we had a poll, I am sure many people would raise their hands and say they've installed Homeworld a few times since it was released "just to crank up the graphics to the max and ooo ahhhh at how good it still looks".

I wonder whether they will do a Publishers poll and who would come top there? THQ? EA?

 

[exar333]

meh the only one who belongs on that list is blizzard.

You obviously don't play many PC games then; there are a LOT of developers who focus primarily on PC gaming, but not all of them are large. Paradox Interactive is a great example of a developer who has been releasing amazing games for a decade on the PC.

One thing we all have to realize is that developing for the PC AND consoles isn't neccessarily a bad thing. If they are both done right, the PC will probably be superior, depending on the genre, and everyone can enjoy the game (Oblivion is a good example). On the other hand, a straight port, or crappy port to PC is unacceptable.

Realize that PC games have influenced console games, and vice versa. A good game is a good game, regardless of how many platforms it is released in.

 

[CPA]

I would include Relic and Firaxis on that list as well. But yes, they pretty much nailed the ones they had.

Add Croteam (makers of the Serious Sam games) to the Top 10.

 

[CPA]

Yup, and they say that PC gaming is dying...

Anyone who says Valve isn't fully supporting PC gaming is out of their minds... look at what they gave us with the Orange Box. Yeah, I know OB came out on consoles, but you know that it was meant primarily for PC gaming. You can't blame Valve for trying to test new waters (console versions of OB and L4D), as long as they don't abandon those who first supported them, unlike IW. Matchmaking in L4D is understandable seeing as most games are only composed of 4 players... I think not providing a matchmaking service would of been a bad idea. Don't forget that Valve provided both matchmaking and dedicated servers (best of both worlds), unlike IW.

Big ups to Bioware, despite the fact that they are with EA. Dragon Age is very impressive on PC and actually utilizes the advantages that the PC has to offer. Can't say the same for other games (Borderlands, MW2)...

the fact that console gamers are still waiting for the first map update with TF2, while PC gamers have gotten update after update, is enough to prove their love to me.

I bought OB for the 360 before ever playing it on the PC. Once I got into TF2 on the PC, I could see where Valve's support was.

 

[mindcycle]

I would like to have seen Stardock on the list. I do believe they were focusing on the larger developers though. A whole other article could be written about all the great indie developers.

 

[Genx87]

If next gen consoles can make use of KB + Mouse in games my PC gaming days will be over.

 

[BladeVenom]

Stardock, Paradox, Relic, and the other remaining PC exclusive devs love PC gaming far more than everyone on that list except Blizzard.

That's a much better list. Bethesda, Valve, and Bioware have clearly compromised their games for consoles.

 

[crownjules]

That's a much better list. Bethesda, Valve, and Bioware have clearly compromised their games for consoles.

For the reasons already mentioned in previous posts, Valve definitely does not belong on that list. They tested the console waters with OB/L4D but clearly supported those products far more on the PC post-release.

 

[zerocool84]

If next gen consoles can make use of KB + Mouse in games my PC gaming days will be over.

Most console games can. PC gaming is more than just KBM.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Although it is a smaller publisher, I think Stardock deserves some recognition. (Stardock made the Galactic Civilizations games and published Sins of a Solar Empire and doesn't burden purchasers with nasty DRM.)

 

[KMFJD]

If xbox360 can make use of KB + Mouse in games my PC gaming days will be over.

ftfy

 

[exar333]

Most console games can. PC gaming is more than just KBM.

PC gaming is constantly evolving with new CPU and GPU technologies as well as utilizing the newest other tools (internet, etc.). Consoles, with their low-end DX9.0 hardware are slowing the progression of games.

 

[Exterous]

Stardock, Paradox, Relic, and the other remaining PC exclusive devs love PC gaming far more than everyone on that list except Blizzard.

+1 Plus the first two (I am not sure about Relic) have great support and will actually listen to players concerns (I actually came in here to mention Stardock and paradox)

Edit: I'm glad to see that many others have mentioend those two companies. Some very very awesome games have come from them that I have lost many hours to

 

[Coldkilla]

Bohemia Interactive. They continue to support their games even 5 years after their release. Their fanbase is extremely loyal. Their game's lifespans go on as much as 10+ years without getting boring due to thousands of usermade content.

F*CK Activision.

-However I do agree, Keyboard/Mouse support will essentially be the death of PC gaming. I don't see them supporting it anytime soon though, a mouse will generally kick the crap out of a thumbpad from a controller. I personally like having my decked out system that can play the games in the way developers truly wanted gamers to experience. None of this dubbed down crap.

Nearly 1 quarter of a million signed this petition for MW2 Dedicated Servers:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw

 

[Sentrosi2121]

I see a lot of people praising Blizzard, but didn't they rip dedicated servers from Starcraft II?

 

[jvroig]

Yes, supposedly to force a better experience with a "new and improved" Batte.net experience.

Let's see how that pans out, but I'm pessimistic about it myself. LAN parties made the original Starcraft experience awesome, and I can't help but feel Blizzard's move is a wrong one.

 

[EarthwormJim]

I see a lot of people praising Blizzard, but didn't they rip dedicated servers from Starcraft II?

I thought it was lan play they took out, I don't remember any blizzard game supporting dedicated servers.

 

[dguy6789]

Blizzard does not belong on the list, not after WoW and SC2. Valve has earned its spot though.

 

[KMFJD]

Blizzard does not belong on the list, not after WoW and SC2. Valve has earned its spot though.

How so? Could you explain your thinking? What has Blizzard done with WoW to take them off this list? same with Starcraft II?

 

[dguy6789]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

 

[KMFJD]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

Expansion packs? really ? that's your gripe with WoW?

 

[Elcs]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

SC2 is supposed to be split into three FULL Campaigns, spread across three packs.

Essentially you will be getting three full length games, each with its own specific race at the heart of the campaign.

Despite my belief that SC2 will be average, much like SC1, I cannot sit and watch people trolling it because Blizzard have taken a different route to the normal campaign structure. With the changes in structure I believe multiplayer will be reasonably unaffected.

However, I do agree that the removal of LAN play was a mistake.

 

[pontifex]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

ZOMG! you have to spend an extra $30 every so many years?
If the packs added very little content, i might see your point. I don't know if this is the case with WoW since I haven't played WoW in years.

Your gripe here is ridiculous. Pretty much every mmo requires you to pay for an expansion.

 

[Bryf50]

I agree with Dice, I don't see any reason why the shouldn't use the pc as there main platform. Bf2 sold several million copies without the consoles and I'm sure a solid Bf3 will sell similar if not more.

As for Blizzard, I think they would have jumped ship already if it wasn't for all of their ip just not working well on the consoles. Rts, arpg, and mmo's just don't work well with a controller.