Id follows Crytek, Lucas Arts

[frythecpuofbender]

No I don't have numbers, just experience from knowing and listening to a lot of gamers.
The 5% mod chip piracy comes from a console manufacturer, dunno where I found it. But you can bet your ass that PC piracy is rampant. As is downloading of movies, mp3s and all the other stuff.

Listen, I know it's easy, I know everyone does it and everyone feels a little guilty for it and thus the emotional reactions and cryouts when a PC gaming studio tells it like it is.
Just admit it: A couple of years ago everything was fine, you knew how to get your "free" stuff and it was cool. Those that pirated weren't exactly mainstream so the mainstream products/companies didn't care.
It has just become to easy and widespread nowadays, it is the mainstream now, filling their Ipods, notebooks and PCs with free downloads, and it affects everyone. The movie industry as well as the game industry.
As long as we are stuck with copyright laws and habits from the 20th century and companies can't adapt their business model it will matter and change the industry for the worse. Companies are going out of business because of it. Of course you say, those are the ones with shitty products nobody wanted to buy and that may be half of the truth, but the other half is: Free downloading for everyone is not working well with our chosen economic system.

And no, I'm not a console gamer, never owned one, probably never will, so that's that WaitingForNehalem.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

You know, it's funny how all people ever talk about is piracy on the pc. What people miss is the used market for consoles. I have a local used bookstore that sells tons of used games. Gamespot makes most of their money off of used games and guess what, the companies don't get a dime. Then a lot of other people just borrow eachother's games. So instead of people and companies pointing the finger to the PC market, why not take a closer look at the "everyone pays $60 bucks for our games and no one pirates a single copy (console market).

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
No I don't have numbers, just experience from knowing and listening to a lot of gamers.
The 5% mod chip piracy comes from a console manufacturer, dunno where I found it. But you can bet your ass that PC piracy is rampant. As is downloading of movies, mp3s and all the other stuff.

blah blah blah

tl;dr

Basically you made up some percentages. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx

Originally posted by: OCguy
Thanks pirates, you fuckheads. DIAF.

It's funny, id Software has always enjoyed great sales on the PC, with Doom 3 selling well over a million copies worldwide on the PC, and over 3.5 million total. Seeing that Doom 3 was pretty much the last big PC title id has released, this seems like a lame excuse. I know I bought a copy of Doom 3, sadly, at launch, and I know a lot of people that did.

I think at the end of the day, Hollenshead and id Software needed a scapegoat to justify moving over to the 360 as their primary platform, and piracy was the easiest target. Of course, due to an ever changing technology base as opposed to the static hardware requirements of a console, the PC is always going to be a harder, more challenging platform to develop for, and obviously id, just like most developers, has chosen not to innovate from a technology standpoint, but to take the lowest "next gen" common denominator and run with it.

While piracy is a horrible thing that does take money away from sales, I don't see it as being the real reason id Software is moving to a console as their primary development platform.

It's not.

The majority of PC gamers are adults who have a more critical taste and are very cautious of where they throw their hard earned money....If a game sucks it spreads like wildfire on review sites and forums like this and people will most likely not buy it.

A majority of 360 owners are kids who will cry whine and bitch at mom and dad to buy them the latest game regardless of the quality, and mom will fork out the dough just to shut little Johnny up while shopping at Walmart. If the kid hates it they just toss it aside and have mom go buy something else.

Piracy on the 360 is already rampant and not very hard. The more popular it becomes the greater the piracy on it will be...hell if I had a 360 I'd probably mod the SOB to.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
The majority of PC gamers are adults who have a more critical taste and are very cautious of where they throw their hard earned money....If a game sucks it spreads like wildfire on review sites and forums like this and people will most likely not buy it.

A majority of 360 owners are kids who will cry whine and bitch at mom and dad to buy them the latest game regardless of the quality, and mom will fork out the dough just to shut little Johnny up while shopping at Walmart. If the kid hates it they just toss it aside and have mom go buy something else.

Piracy on the 360 is already rampant and not very hard. The more popular it becomes the greater the piracy on it will be...hell if I had a 360 I'd probably mod the SOB to.

What you're saying about Xbox is only true for the online play. People who have jobs and families don't spend as much time online. It gives the appearance that everyone with an Xbox is a retard, but really it's just everyone on Live who is a retard.

Pirating 360 games is very easy and I know quite a few people who do it. Xbox has the exact same problem as PC - there's no way to stop people from pirating single player games. "we'll ban you from xbox live!" well big whoop, people who buy the $200 Xbox just for pirating don't play online anyway.

You know, it's funny how all people ever talk about is piracy on the pc. What people miss is the used market for consoles. I have a local used bookstore that sells tons of used games. Gamespot makes most of their money off of used games and guess what, the companies don't get a dime. Then a lot of other people just borrow eachother's games. So instead of people and companies pointing the finger to the PC market, why not take a closer look at the "everyone pays $60 bucks for our games and no one pirates a single copy (console market).

Actually they do care about that. Gamestop gets all kinds of flack from the gaming industry. I was working at Best Buy a few months ago and the management was talking to us about how they were starting to get into used game sales. According to our managers, the game industry is such a bunch of cunts that they convinced local authorities that dealing used games should require a pawn broker license. You'll also remember that Blockbuster has been sued by Nintendo numerous times.



I'm surprised how many retards in this thread think PC gaming is expensive. You won't spend $105 for a high end video card but you'll spend $400 on a PS3.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The majority of PC gamers are adults who have a more critical taste and are very cautious of where they throw their hard earned money....If a game sucks it spreads like wildfire on review sites and forums like this and people will most likely not buy it.

You don't follow the PC game market, pretty much at all, do you? Outside of WoW, their isn't what I would say is a quality title in the top ten for all time sellers on the PC(Sims and expansions with Myst thrown in there), and WoW is certainly a point you could debate(two toons into T8 content here before people say I don't know ). Good games may not sell great to the extremely small segment of posters on tech/gaming forums- but those aren't the people driving the industry.

Also, your notion that most PC gamers are adults is sketchy at best. WoW still dominates the PC gaming world, and there are a whole lot of kids on all the time- maybe not as bad as Live!, but the S/N ratio is still horrific most of the time.

[2]A majority of 360 owners are kids who will cry whine and bitch at mom and dad to buy them the latest game regardless of the quality[/quote]

I will take the top ten all time sellers on the 360 over the top ten all time sellers on the PC in an instant- using the metrics you are laying out 360 gamers are far more critical of their games then their PC counterparts. Using the Wii may work out for you, the 360 and PS3 it doesn't work out quite like that.

Piracy on the 360 is already rampant and not very hard. The more popular it becomes the greater the piracy on it will be...hell if I had a 360 I'd probably mod the SOB to.

Are you a thief? If not, I don't understand why you would mod your 360.

Halo3, CoD 4, GTA IV, GoW, CoD W@W, GoW2, Assasin's Creed, GHIII, Forza2 and Lego Indiana Jones are the top ten for the 360 to date btw. One kids game snuck in at number 10.

I'm surprised how many retards in this thread think PC gaming is expensive. You won't spend $105 for a high end video card but you'll spend $400 on a PS3.

Are you claiming you are going to get 5 years out of that vid card? If you think you are, well, I can understand why you would be comfortable with the 'retard' comment, you probably have heard it an exceptional amount

 

[Modelworks]

People mod the 360 and other consoles for a lot of reasons. One is to play backups, that are legal as long as you own a copy. Others do it so they can run homebrew software. Those people are the minority though. Piracy on consoles is nowhere near as easy as the pc. The majority of console users rent or buy new/used games because the process of moding a console takes some work. Yes it isn't brain surgery, but it is nowhere near the ease of piracy on a pc. Most people I have talked to are afraid of ruining the $300 console they just bought and so they stay clear of opening them up .

The pc has a couple problems. One is the cost. Everyone knows it cost more than a console, but you can't also do work with the console and really that has been the only reason we can still game on the pc. If the pc were only a gaming platform, it would be DOA. Its the multi-purpose use that keeps the pc alive. The good news is that hardware cost have fallen to such a low price point that you don't have to break the bank to game on the pc.

Compatibility. It takes much more development time on the pc because you have to deal with all the variables. You can test a game to death in house and then release it and have weird errors show up because someone out there had a different driver installed. Consoles are great because you know with certainty how the retail game will perform for every customer.

Piracy on the pc is killing the genre. I don't know the solution, wish I did. One problem is the sense of entitlement people have that just because they download a game its okay, they wouldn't have bought it anyway. But the developer put his work into the game with the understanding that everyone who enjoyed his work would pay him for it. It would be just like people attending a play and the walking out without paying anything. The actors put their time into it and got nothing in return. You didn't steal anything physical, you stole their time and work.

One solution I really like is the upcoming PCG format. I can't give all the details on how it all works since they haven't made the press releases, but the idea behind it is to turn the pc into a console on steroids. It is a true plug and play solution. The games are contained on the DVD and never installed on the pc. The pc boots from the DVD and into the game. Drivers for hardware are on the DVD. This helps developers because they know what driver versions are being used. So far what I have seen of it works pretty good. The only downside I dislike about it is the noise from the DVD drive while you play. Still its a pretty neat system. The format allows people to play games with no configuring, no worry about copy protection systems , and the ability to sell games later. Will it be pirated ? Probably. But that wasn't why the system was developed. It was done to remove some of the pitfalls of pc gaming like resale, installs, and configuration.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Missed this comment last time-

You know, it's funny how all people ever talk about is piracy on the pc. What people miss is the used market for consoles. I have a local used bookstore that sells tons of used games. Gamespot makes most of their money off of used games and guess what, the companies don't get a dime. Then a lot of other people just borrow eachother's games. So instead of people and companies pointing the finger to the PC market, why not take a closer look at the "everyone pays $60 bucks for our games and no one pirates a single copy (console market).

Where did those used games come from? Someone bought them up front- dev got their cut- license to use was then sold to another person. The game companies have tried to sue as they didn't get a second cut, the law doesn't work that way though(even though they may want it to). In order for GameStop or any other store to have 100 used games on the shelf at any given point, 100 new games had to be sold somewhere to then 'create' those used games. How many copies of games that aren't released yet that are on torrents do you think were sold to the people posting it in the first place? What's worse, even if they did buy one, they have neither relinquished there right to play the game and a far greater issue is thousands of people pirate off of one 'copy' of the game. While it is possible, I would wager an extremely large amount that not many single packaged gamea have changed hands thousands of times

People mod the 360 and other consoles for a lot of reasons. One is to play backups, that are legal as long as you own a copy. Others do it so they can run homebrew software.

The overwhelming majority mod it because they are criminals. Would be nice if MS allowed homebrew to run without mods, with homebrew cleared and region coding gone, they could then effectively shut down the mod chip business.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The majority of PC gamers are adults who have a more critical taste and are very cautious of where they throw their hard earned money....If a game sucks it spreads like wildfire on review sites and forums like this and people will most likely not buy it.

You don't follow the PC game market, pretty much at all, do you? Outside of WoW, their isn't what I would say is a quality title in the top ten for all time sellers on the PC

I think he's talking about "gamers"; the people who enjoy high end things. The "more critical taste" doesn't mean the base game is better, but it means things like better mod support (Fallout 3), lots of custom maps (Counter-Strike), or simple variation from server to server (pretty much any private server based online game). This kind of thing is why the exact same game can be released on PC and Xbox at the same time, but the PC version has much higher replay value. Think of it like this, Half-Life was released before the PS2 existed, and it still has thousands of players after the PS2 has basically died.

I will take the top ten all time sellers on the 360 over the top ten all time sellers on the PC in an instant- using the metrics you are laying out 360 gamers are far more critical of their games then their PC counterparts. Using the Wii may work out for you, the 360 and PS3 it doesn't work out quite like that.

To compare sales figures, you would need to include the Wii. The reason for this is that most people don't own a good video card, so the bulk of the population can only buy shitty PC games. The most popular console is the Wii, and it too is mostly shitty games. Once you look at high quality games, the numbers between PC, Xbox, and PS3 start to look the same. Just have a look at Gamespot's top 10 list in the past 12 months for each platform. PC, Xbox, and PS3 have many of the same games on that list.

Piracy on the 360 is already rampant and not very hard. The more popular it becomes the greater the piracy on it will be...hell if I had a 360 I'd probably mod the SOB to.

Are you a thief? If not, I don't understand why you would mod your 360.

Mostly because it's funny. Developers like saying consoles have lower piracy, so it only makes sense to pirate console games. This is sort of like when a company claims "we have uncrackable DRM" then groups line up see who can crack it first. If you have any kids, tell them not to touch something and see what happens.

I'm surprised how many retards in this thread think PC gaming is expensive. You won't spend $105 for a high end video card but you'll spend $400 on a PS3.

Are you claiming you are going to get 5 years out of that vid card? If you think you are, well, I can understand why you would be comfortable with the 'retard' comment, you probably have heard it an exceptional amount

If you want to have the same graphics for 5 years then yes you can. I bought my computer in either november or december of 2006, which is when the PS3 came out. The video card I had in that computer was a GeForce 7950GT and I think it was something like $300. Can you guess which games it's capable of playing at PS3 level graphics with no problems at all? Fallout 3, Deadspace, Prey, Doom 3, Quake 4, Gears of War, and GTA 4. Keep in mind that the PS3 price at that time was $600 USD, roughly twice the cost of that video card and it played the exact same games.

That was in 2006, the PS3 was twice as expensive as PC gaming. Now in 2009, the PS3's price is closer to 3-4x as expensive. The Xbox is even worse since that beater nickel and dimes you to death.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I think he's talking about "gamers"

Normally when I think "gamers" I don't think narrow minded platform bigot.

Think of it like this, Half-Life was released before the PS2 existed, and it still has thousands of players after the PS2 has basically died.

PS2 sold over $10Million dollars worth of hardware in the US alone last month. By console standards you are right, it is almost dead(not much over 100K units)- that is also currently known as CS dwarfing numbers. PS2 is on pace to clear $150Million in hardware sales in the US alone this year- you may want to check a bit closer at just how tiny things like HL/CS are compared to the broader gaming market. The mod community is miniscule, and they almost never have content as good as stand alone games. Given the state of PC gaming, believe me, I understand you must rely on the mod scene to provide the platform with worth while entertainment atm, particularly if you are a platform bigot.

Once you look at high quality games, the numbers between PC, Xbox, and PS3 start to look the same. Just have a look at Gamespot's top 10 list in the past 12 months for each platform. PC, Xbox, and PS3 have many of the same games on that list.

Wow, imagine that. Must be because the PC crowd is so much more critical with their tastes, heh.

If you have any kids, tell them not to touch something and see what happens.

I do have kids(my oldest is about to get her learners permit for driving), when I tell them not to touch something, they tend not to. Why is that? They know there is a reason behind it.

The video card I had in that computer was a GeForce 7950GT and I think it was something like $300. Can you guess which games it's capable of playing at PS3 level graphics with no problems at all? Fallout 3, Deadspace, Prey, Doom 3, Quake 4, Gears of War, and GTA 4. Keep in mind that the PS3 price at that time was $600 USD, roughly twice the cost of that video card and it played the exact same games.

Are you serious with your list? You have a bunch of games that were never on the PS3, a couple that were on last gens consoles, and all of them have exceedingly poor visuals that actually are on the PS3. Let's get your 7950GT running a game that is comparable to GT5, then we'll talk. Also, what is up with this $600 PS3? I live in the US, and the PS3 was available at launch for $500.

That was in 2006, the PS3 was twice as expensive as PC gaming. Now in 2009, the PS3's price is closer to 3-4x as expensive.

You aren't getting that you aren't done, and the PC total is cummulative for the generation- that is the reality of PC gaming. I started PC gaming back in the days when the distribution method for games was printed text that we entered the code base ourselves and saved them to 5.25" floppies, haven't stopped PC gaming since. I am extremely familiar with the cost, the truly dishonest can fool themselves into thinking that it is only a vid card that seperates a gaming PC from a netbook, but even if they are allowed that just the vid cards after a generation life cycle very easily exceed the price of the consoles. The PS2 is still going(how would that Voodoo1, which wasn't even out when the PS2 launched, handle GT4? Heh).

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
The mod community is miniscule, and they almost never have content as good as stand alone games.

And now you've shown that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3171638
"Valve tallies 4.2 million copies sold of the multiplayer mod Counter-Strike"

A a mod that sells 4.2 million copies and you say it's not as good as a stand alone game? Team Fortress mod for Half-Life was so successful that they made a stand alone sequel to it, Team Fortress 2. Natural Selection mod tells the same story; Natural Selection 2 is a stand alone sequel. Day of Defeat mod also expanded into the stand alone game DOD:Source. Also, Counter-Strike:Source is a standalone sequel.

Once you look at high quality games, the numbers between PC, Xbox, and PS3 start to look the same. Just have a look at Gamespot's top 10 list in the past 12 months for each platform. PC, Xbox, and PS3 have many of the same games on that list.

Wow, imagine that. Must be because the PC crowd is so much more critical with their tastes, heh.

Having the same game does not mean they are the same quality. Example: Fallout 3 on Xbox is so horrible it's almost unplayable. Pickup 3 items, you're now too heavy to fast-travel, drop some stuff, fast-travel, sell stuff, fast-travel back, pick up other stuff, fast-travel back to town. In the Xbox version, you spend more than half the game in town selling stuff. The PC version has literally thousands of mods to fix little bullshit things like this. Orange Box is another example of having a broken console version of a PC game. Guys on the PC side have moded it so we can now have 32 player servers (Xbox only has 16). The PC version has custom maps, zombie mod, and extra weapons.

The video card I had in that computer was a GeForce 7950GT and I think it was something like $300. Can you guess which games it's capable of playing at PS3 level graphics with no problems at all? Fallout 3, Deadspace, Prey, Doom 3, Quake 4, Gears of War, and GTA 4. Keep in mind that the PS3 price at that time was $600 USD, roughly twice the cost of that video card and it played the exact same games.

Are you serious with your list? You have a bunch of games that were never on the PS3, a couple that were on last gens consoles, and all of them have exceedingly poor visuals that actually are on the PS3. Let's get your 7950GT running a game that is comparable to GT5, then we'll talk. Also, what is up with this $600 PS3? I live in the US, and the PS3 was available at launch for $500.

And who's fault is it that they have exceedingly poor visuals? Is it maybe because the PS3 has as much memory as your average computer from 1999? (256mb system + 256 video). That's pathetic. If you'll think back to Doom 3 settings, you'll remember that setting it to ultra quality causes it to give a warning that using ultra quality uses upwards of 512mb of video memory. Did that register? A PS3 literally cannot play Doom 3 at highest quality; it simply doesn't have enough memory. That 7950GT video card does have 512mb, and that's why it can do it.

That was in 2006, the PS3 was twice as expensive as PC gaming. Now in 2009, the PS3's price is closer to 3-4x as expensive.

You aren't getting that you aren't done, and the PC total is cummulative for the generation- that is the reality of PC gaming. I started PC gaming back in the days when the distribution method for games was printed text that we entered the code base ourselves and saved them to 5.25" floppies, haven't stopped PC gaming since. I am extremely familiar with the cost, the truly dishonest can fool themselves into thinking that it is only a vid card that seperates a gaming PC from a netbook, but even if they are allowed that just the vid cards after a generation life cycle very easily exceed the price of the consoles. The PS2 is still going(how would that Voodoo1, which wasn't even out when the PS2 launched, handle GT4? Heh).

Actually that price does include cumulative upgrades. That computer I bought in 2006 is still running games and it's basically the same as it was when I bought it.

Do you want me to post some youtube videos of it playing modern games at highest video settings?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Halo3, CoD 4, GTA IV, GoW, CoD W@W, GoW2, Assasin's Creed, GHIII, Forza2 and Lego Indiana Jones are the top ten for the 360 to date btw. One kids game snuck in at number 10.

Wow what quality games. Out of that whole list 3 games are original and not successors in a series. And we can all agree that those games are "quality" games that stand up with Half Life, System Shock 2, and Deus Ex. :roll: Console gamers do have lower taste because they've never played anything better. To them as long as it has a little bit of a story and blood and guts it's an excellent game. Tell me, what makes Halo revolutionary and completely different from any other game? Nothing. PC Gamers have enjoyed that type of quality for a long time but it was something new to console gamers. Heck what is the Xbox? A proprietary, closed down pc. Every new console game that comes out looks exactly the same and they still sell. Then they makes sequels and those sell well too. That's the real reason why developers like consoles, because no matter what they put out it will sell well. They don't need to study the market and put quality into it because it will sell either way.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

Well you could call the consoles the multiplex cinemas compared to the PC's avantgarde movie houses. Sure it would be better for an uncompromised filmmaker if his/her film runs on the avantgarde screen but now that his/her films cost 20million to make you'd better have some of those multiplex screens to run on too.
It is the same as with the movies really. It means we will see a lot more "mainstreamed-to-death" dreck like GOW and HALO (similar to your typical Michael Bay- or Will Smith-film) where storytelling is non existant and the gameplay is simple but flashy and explosive.
(and sometimes there is something to enjoy in these fastfood titles)
But once in a while we will still get a "CHILDREN OF MEN" even on a multiplex screen.
At least that's what I'm thinking. I believe CRYTEK will be one of the few develiopers that will still want to really use the PC version of their game to show off. Not to say their storytelling is as good as CHILDREN OF MEN of course

 

[BenSkywalker]

And now you've shown that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

English not your first language? I'll help you out- "almost never" is different then "never". CS clearly would be an exception that would fall under the "almost" end. There are a few exceptions, most of them based on the Source engine(back in the day we saw some really good one on the Quake engines too). Most mods, however, are not remotely close to the quality of a bad game.

Example: Fallout 3 on Xbox is so horrible it's almost unplayable. Pickup 3 items, you're now too heavy to fast-travel, drop some stuff, fast-travel, sell stuff, fast-travel back, pick up other stuff, fast-travel back to town. In the Xbox version, you spend more than half the game in town selling stuff. The PC version has literally thousands of mods to fix little bullshit things like this.

PC scrub gamers who need cheats are certainly better off playing on the PC. If you have no interest in playing the game as developers intended then yes, you are certainly better off on the PC.

Orange Box is another example of having a broken console version of a PC game. Guys on the PC side have moded it so we can now have 32 player servers (Xbox only has 16). The PC version has custom maps, zombie mod, and extra weapons.

I guess those must be important things to you.

And who's fault is it that they have exceedingly poor visuals? Is it maybe because the PS3 has as much memory as your average computer from 1999? (256mb system + 256 video). That's pathetic. If you'll think back to Doom 3 settings, you'll remember that setting it to ultra quality causes it to give a warning that using ultra quality uses upwards of 512mb of video memory.

Doom3 ran on the original XBox, they didn't even bother porting it to the newer consoles, it is a last gen title.

Did that register? A PS3 literally cannot play Doom 3 at highest quality; it simply doesn't have enough memory. That 7950GT video card does have 512mb, and that's why it can do it.

Shows how lousy PC devs truly are, doesn't it? Let's compare the visuals of GT5 to Doom3 why don't we. If you want to debate the finer nuances of graphics technology you should know by now that I am more then game. Maybe you can start a thread over in Video to get yourself a lot of backup, you'll need it

Actually that price does include cumulative upgrades. That computer I bought in 2006 is still running games and it's basically the same as it was when I bought it.

Processor, RAM, mobo, vid card and OS? List em all out, come '12 we'll see how that setup is holding up.

Do you want me to post some youtube videos of it playing modern games at highest video settings?

With your current vid card my PC runs all the current games almost exactly the same as yours, what would you be trying to prove? I have Crysis, can run it at max detail(although not smooth enough to really play, need to play without AA and back down shaders a hair to get what I am game to play with).

And we can all agree that those games are "quality" games that stand up with Half Life, System Shock 2, and Deus Ex.

That should show you how 'great' the state of PC gaming is, you need to bring up titles from the previous millenium to compare to the current round of best selling PC games. BTW- out of those titles you listed only HL was a major sales success, guess PC gamers can't pick out quality games either.

Tell me, what makes Halo revolutionary and completely different from any other game?

Halo played decently with a controller. I'll take a mouse/kb for a shooter any day, but Halo wasn't the painful experience to play through that other FPSs had been using a controller.

PC Gamers have enjoyed that type of quality for a long time but it was something new to console gamers.

That statement shows you are simply ignorant on the topic. The difference between you and I in this conversation- I run all the platforms- you don't.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Last Millenium? That is the worst example of word choice. HL came 2 years before 2000 and SS2 came 1 year before 2000. Next time use "decade". Deus Ex was released this millenium. For more recent titles FEAR, Half Life 2, Crysis, STALKER, Battlefield 2 were all quality games. And Halo wasn't as painful because it had auto-aim.

 

[4537256]

i'm just curious, dont flame me or ntohing, i havnt read the whole thread but why do you guys care?
ID,Crytek,Epic.. will have versions for PC ,360 and ps3 instead of just one platform. i think thats awesome cause EVERYONE has a choice and option to play it. just be glad their not excluding pc releases.

most developers do the multiplatform route anyway and all the ones that did PC only either had people b*** that they can't run it maxed out, its buggy, its infested with DRM or it gets pirated so bad that they get blamed when it doesnt sell well and piracy on the pc is pretty bad cause its all software and no hardware hacks needed, plus console games have resell value and rentable.

So "IF" games like "Rage" on the pc platform have the same texture quality..etc that its console counterparts have, then fewer of you will complain cause theres no "super ultra high quality" mode as an option that you wouldnt beable to run well on your rig anyway if it existed.
The real evolution in graphics never truely comes until the next console releases anyway and then the pc plays catchup, then slightly ahead later wich is rarely worth the money it takes to see it anyway.

If "ID" stuck with PC as their main platform, they run the risk of eventually going out of business. we should be glad and want them to make as much money as possible to keep making those great titles.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

So what you're saying is we should be glad pc games are crippled to console standards so we can max them out? We should be able to max out any new game with the graphics power we have today but most developers are just lazy coders.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: 4537256

The real evolution in graphics never truely comes until the next console releases anyway and then the pc plays catchup, then slightly ahead later wich is rarely worth the money it takes to see it anyway.

My PC will dominate any console out there.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Last Millenium? That is the worst example of word choice. HL came 2 years before 2000 and SS2 came 1 year before 2000. Next time use "decade". Deus Ex was released this millenium.

Deus EX was released in 2000, that was last millenium. Start off looking up the history of numbers, particularly how it relates to 0 around the time of the formation of the modern calendar. I assume a certain level of education on these boards, my apologies if I was overshooting

For more recent titles FEAR, Half Life 2, Crysis, STALKER, Battlefield 2 were all quality games. And Halo wasn't as painful because it had auto-aim.

Stalker high quality? I found it more mediocre and it seems like reviewers were leaning towards the moderately above average mark. Crysis is pretty, it isn't a very good game though. It's not bad, but certainly not great- comparable to the original Far Cry which should about be expected coming from Crytek. BF2 was a decent game, and it is only 4 years old. Half Life 2 most people really liked(personally I thought it wasn't close to as good as the original, but I'll give you that one as it is consensus)- they seemed to like it a lot on the consoles too. FEAR I liked the atmosphere a lot, don't know that the gameplay mechanics were the greatest but I enjoyed it. Another console title too. As for Halo- yes, that is why it wasn't as painful, and it is standard now for console FPS to use auto aim. BTW- You only play FPSs? It seems like those are the only games you can manage to list?

My PC will dominate any console out there.

What kind of FPS do you get running GT5?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Last Millenium? That is the worst example of word choice. HL came 2 years before 2000 and SS2 came 1 year before 2000. Next time use "decade". Deus Ex was released this millenium.

Deus EX was released in 2000, that was last millenium. Start off looking up the history of numbers, particularly how it relates to 0 around the time of the formation of the modern calendar. I assume a certain level of education on these boards, my apologies if I was overshooting

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. Two different viewpoints exist. 1001-2000 or 1000-1999 both represent the second millennium. I assume a certain level of education on these boards, my apologies if I was overshooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium

What kind of FPS do you get running GT5?

What is your obsession with this game? Yes I like the Gran Tursimo series too and if it was on the pc I could tell you the FPS but since it is not your question isn't valid.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
So what you're saying is we should be glad pc games are crippled to console standards so we can max them out? We should be able to max out any new game with the graphics power we have today but most developers are just lazy coders.

so what you're saying is they shouldnt bother developing for the PC platform at all if their going to just "cripple" to console standards. Where as my opinion says at least its better than nothing. So which do you prefer exactly?

Although having to redo all textures in a game or even add newer hardware based features costs developers alot of time and money and for what legitimate business reason?
there's no guarantee they will make alot more profit from doing so on platform that has gathered a rather negative press in the software business world.

Many of the best selling PC titles lately have less than spectacular graphics, even for console standards.
Heres some evidence to back it up
http://www.guru3d.com/news/bes...lling-pc-games-en-may/
every game listed is no where near "Crysis" level graphics or software technology that can make use of today's top tech.

When Doom3 was released, high end gamers complained that "Ultra" mode was not playable. Same with Crysis among many others so why create exclusive features to use hardware that only a few % of all gamers out there actually own? If all the versions look the same, no one is missing anything, it becomes a choice of which platform you prefer to play, which controls you like better...etc.

i'm a pc gamer most of the time too, but theres alot of you out there that are very "snobbish" about it. Maybe spending hundreds of dollars every year on hardware isnt the wisest thing to do just for gaming anymore as much as it used to be.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. Two different viewpoints exist. 1001-2000 or 1000-1999 both represent the second millennium.

One is a populist cultural misnomer, the other is reality. Using the populist "viewpoint" one millenium only had 999 years, which contradicts the definition of the word quite clearly.

Yes I like the Gran Tursimo series too and if it was on the pc I could tell you the FPS but since it is not your question isn't valid.

It is exceptionally valid, and the core of the issue as to why platform bigots viewpoints, be they PC or console zealots, isn't worth much in discussions about differing gaming platforms. You cut yourself off from a whole bunch of games and then declare that your system of choice is 'the best' and can beat the others. It can't beat the others if it can't run the games at all.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

And now you've shown that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

English not your first language? I'll help you out- "almost never" is different then "never". CS clearly would be an exception that would fall under the "almost" end. There are a few exceptions, most of them based on the Source engine(back in the day we saw some really good one on the Quake engines too). Most mods, however, are not remotely close to the quality of a bad game.

You discounted the mod community as if nobody cares about it, I show you that literally millions of people do care about it, and somehow you're still right.

Example: Fallout 3 on Xbox is so horrible it's almost unplayable. Pickup 3 items, you're now too heavy to fast-travel, drop some stuff, fast-travel, sell stuff, fast-travel back, pick up other stuff, fast-travel back to town. In the Xbox version, you spend more than half the game in town selling stuff. The PC version has literally thousands of mods to fix little bullshit things like this.

PC scrub gamers who need cheats are certainly better off playing on the PC. If you have no interest in playing the game as developers intended then yes, you are certainly better off on the PC.

Wait, you're saying it's nice that an adventure game spends most of the time selling things in town? Maybe you and your console gamer friends would also be interested in buying a first person shooter where you spend 90% of the time playing tetris. Or maybe an Army game where you peel potatoes and do pushups. Do you also like watching the intro every time you start up Bioshock and Gears? The developer obviously wanted 30 seconds of logos and advertisements, so it would be evil if we were to do something like add "-nointro" to the command line.

Did that register? A PS3 literally cannot play Doom 3 at highest quality; it simply doesn't have enough memory. That 7950GT video card does have 512mb, and that's why it can do it.

Shows how lousy PC devs truly are, doesn't it? Let's compare the visuals of GT5 to Doom3 why don't we. If you want to debate the finer nuances of graphics technology you should know by now that I am more then game. Maybe you can start a thread over in Video to get yourself a lot of backup, you'll need it

Did you actually look at GT5? The shader effects are impressive but it's still plagued by low resolution textures. That "field of view" bullshit in a lot of console games is to make up for the lack of video memory. The background is blurred over to cover up the low resolution textures. PC developers are not restricted by a lack of video memory, so the draw distance can be very high without blurring anything.

Actually that price does include cumulative upgrades. That computer I bought in 2006 is still running games and it's basically the same as it was when I bought it.

Processor, RAM, mobo, vid card and OS? List em all out, come '12 we'll see how that setup is holding up.

It will very likely last until that time. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are only half a year old and neither of them even come close to maxing out the CPU. That E6600 has already lasted 3 years without a problem, and it'll be another 2+ before it comes a major issue. The budget still has another $300 to be spent over the next 2 years and I'm nowhere near requiring a video card upgrade.

Tell me, what makes Halo revolutionary and completely different from any other game?

Halo played decently with a controller. I'll take a mouse/kb for a shooter any day, but Halo wasn't the painful experience to play through that other FPSs had been using a controller.

There were lots of good console FPS games before that. Zero Tolerance on Genesis was good, Doom on SNES was good, Goldeneye for N64 was amazing, PS1 had the Medal of Honor series and I thought they played well. The only thing that's really unique about Halo is that life regenerating thing. At the time, I don't think any other game had that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You discounted the mod community as if nobody cares about it, I show you that literally millions of people do care about it, and somehow you're still right.

CS is on the consoles, that seems to be the point you aren't getting. The mods that people really care about, come over.

Wait, you're saying it's nice that an adventure game spends most of the time selling things in town?

Why do you spend most of your time in town? You picking up all the cups and plates you find? Just as a general hint- really no need for that. Also no need to grab every piece of raider armor off every guy you kill, really. I guess I just don't know people that suck as bad at inventory management as you are implying you do.

Maybe you and your console gamer friends would also be interested in buying a first person shooter where you spend 90% of the time playing tetris.

I play on all systems, I don't care what a game comes out for- if it's good, I can play it. I understand- you must hold on to your platform bigotry, it is important to you, I am far more interested in the games.

Do you also like watching the intro every time you start up Bioshock and Gears?

I have Bioshock for the PC, never played it on the consoles.

Did you actually look at GT5?

Yes, and I have spent a lot of time playing GT5P too.

The shader effects are impressive but it's still plagued by low resolution textures.

Assuming you saw a really crappy vid feed of it then.

"field of view" bullshit in a lot of console games is to make up for the lack of video memory.

DoF was brought to you by PC devs, and a lot of people use that as is simulates proper image distortion based on atmospheric issues when viewing objects at a great distance when the water content in the air reaches a certain point. With that said, GT doesn't use DoF. "Field of view"- btw- is in every 3D game ever made- it has to be- it's how you see and has nothing to do with blurring

It will very likely last until that time. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are only half a year old and neither of them even come close to maxing out the CPU. That E6600 has already lasted 3 years without a problem, and it'll be another 2+ before it comes a major issue. The budget still has another $300 to be spent over the next 2 years and I'm nowhere near requiring a video card upgrade.

Processor, RAM, mobo, vid card and OS- you didn't list off what you built with.

There were lots of good console FPS games before that. Zero Tolerance on Genesis was good, Doom on SNES was good, Goldeneye for N64 was amazing, PS1 had the Medal of Honor series and I thought they played well.

You are kidding, right? I can only assume you weren't playing PC games during that timeframe. Fire up Goldeneye(the only game on your list that could possibly be confused with good) today and see how it plays. That game came out at the same time as Half-Life. Everything else on your list was absolute garbage. I've always played all the systems, it isn't something new for me

 

[4537256]

future evolutions of motion tracking on consoles may put an end to the kb/mouse debate. sony and MS are working on it so no doubt all the consoles eventually will have them and can theoretically put a kb/mouse combo to shame due to the far more vast variety of distinct input movements you have control of.