PDA

View Full Version : I hope this is simply ported to console



newhenpal
2nd Mar 2008, 23:08
Well I'm fairly confident that one of the reasons Deus Ex: Invisible War was dissapointing was because it was made for both PC and Xbox, without the PC in mind (Deus Ex was more of a slow paced game, perfect for PCs). For Deus Ex 3 I hope they make it for PCs in mind and then port it later on for consoles. Deus Ex: The Conspiracy is a perfect example of a PC-to-Console port, besides the long loading time, because they took out things that wouldn't translate well to consoles (such as letting you imput augs instead of using a machine) and streamlined the controls (simply pressing square would pause the game and bring up the weapons screen).

Dave W
2nd Mar 2008, 23:25
Well I'm fairly confident that one of the reasons Deus Ex: Invisible War was dissapointing was because it was made for both PC and Xbox, without the PC in mind (Deus Ex was more of a slow paced game, perfect for PCs). For Deus Ex 3 I hope they make it for PCs in mind and then port it later on for consoles. Deus Ex: The Conspiracy is a perfect example of a PC-to-Console port, besides the long loading time, because they took out things that wouldn't translate well to consoles (such as letting you imput augs instead of using a machine) and streamlined the controls (simply pressing square would pause the game and bring up the weapons screen).

Firstly, no it wasn't. Secondly, even if that was the case, Eidos would not focus the game for the PC market because it's so small in comparison to the console market.

minus0ne
3rd Mar 2008, 00:17
Firstly, no it wasn't. Secondly, even if that was the case, Eidos would not focus the game for the PC market because it's so small in comparison to the console market.
Banned from the TTLG forums so you come terrorise this one, eh? ;)

lightbringerrr
3rd Mar 2008, 00:58
Well I'm fairly confident that one of the reasons Deus Ex: Invisible War was dissapointing was because it was made for both PC and Xbox, without the PC in mind (Deus Ex was more of a slow paced game, perfect for PCs). For Deus Ex 3 I hope they make it for PCs in mind and then port it later on for consoles. Deus Ex: The Conspiracy is a perfect example of a PC-to-Console port, besides the long loading time, because they took out things that wouldn't translate well to consoles (such as letting you imput augs instead of using a machine) and streamlined the controls (simply pressing square would pause the game and bring up the weapons screen).

I am so with you on this; you don't even know. I've held off t'ill this point, but since you've opened the can; it's time to let fly and let fly hard.
If Eidos Montreal want's to turn this franchise around, they better put thier ears to the ground and listen up.
The first time I pulled up my "inventory screen" on IW, my first thought was "Oh God, say it isn't so". Unfortunately, it was so: My Franchise just got the Retard Treatment.
That's right Millenium Joy-Stickers; your consumerism screwed the pooch on this one; Big Time. And, I'll throw in KOTOR 2 to the indictment as well( because we all know how wonderfully finished and complete that game turned out to be; he said as he rolled his eyes...).
Appearantly it was not quite enough for Eidos to have a massively successful franchise in Tomb Raider to cater to the 21st Century Atari 2600 crowd. No, they had to go and take one of the greatest games ever made, and produce a third-rate follow-up that catered to the HALO crowd.
This is inexcuseable B.S, with a capital B.
How I long for the days when Sega and Nintendo catered to the kiddies, and developers like Monolith said "Screw that; we're going a diffrent way", and made games for the Big Kids.

newhenpal
3rd Mar 2008, 01:03
I am so with you on this; you don't even know. I've held off t'ill this point, but since you've opened the can; it's time to let fly and let fly hard.
If Eidos Montreal want's to turn this this around, they better put thier ears to the ground and listen up.
The first time I puled up my "inventory screen" on IW, my first thought was "Oh God, say it isn't so". Unfortunately, it was so: My Franchise just got the Retard Treatment.
That's right Millenium Joy-Stickers; your consumerism screwed the pooch on this one; Big Time. And, I'll throw in KOTOR 2 to the indictment as well( because we all know how wonderfully finished and complete that game turned out to be; he said as he rolled his eyes...).
Appearantly it was not quite enough for Eidos to have a massively successful franchise in Tomb Raider to cater to the 21st Century Atari 2600 crowd. No, they had to go and take one of the greatest games ever made, and produce a third-rate follow-up that catered to the HALO crowd.
This is inexcuseable B.S, with a capital B.
How I long for the days when Sega and Nintendo catered to the kiddies, and developers like Monolith said "Screw that; we're going a diffrent way", and made games for the Big Kids.

You're pretty extreme there, PC gaming isn't superior to Console gaming or vice-versa, simply diffrent ways of playing. The menu for IW would make sense for the xbox since it doesn't have 80 keys, but for the PC the menu was dissapointing.

Azrepheal
3rd Mar 2008, 01:24
PC gaming isn't superior to Console gaming

Ahem Oh yes it is! Kidding :p

lightbringerrr
3rd Mar 2008, 03:30
PC gaming isn't superior to Console gaming or vice-versa, simply diffrent ways of playing.

But approaches to every aspect of a game( development, implimentation, and design etc.) we're, at one point, distinct. That no longer exists, and in this mad dash insanity to try and please everyone, the possibility for true greatness suffers.
I can honestly say, all these years later, that I wish to God DX never won 'Game of the Year'. Third or fourth runner up would have been enough to keep it going while keeping it away from the mass-market bean counters.
What the hell is wrong with having a PC-exclusive game with a cult following?
Everybody who owns a console, I can guarantee you owns a computer too, and NOT the other way around!!!
If the game is a success, or if it catches your attention, then go to Best Buy, get the game, put it on your PC, and rock out with the rest of the community!
If you absolutely have to have that joystick in your hand, it's not like you can't hook up a controller to a PC!
You know, I love playing games. I've enjoyed it for a long time. I don't know every facet that goes in to making them, but if I had the capital I'd buy the rights to the Blood Franchise, get the brightest members of the original team, and re-establish said franchise as a PC-Only platform.
No excuses and NO Compromise.

jd10013
3rd Mar 2008, 21:48
What the hell is wrong with having a PC-exclusive game with a cult following?


nothing wrong with it, but the problem lies in the $$ it takes to make a game. In order to make money, the devs need those 500k to 1 million console unit sales to make money. very, very, very few games sell enough pc copies to make enough money. and the ones that do are usally games like the sims, and barbie pet detective.

Azrepheal
3rd Mar 2008, 22:03
and barbie pet detective.

Only cos BPD has a kickass multiplayer option :D

SageSavage
3rd Mar 2008, 22:08
Sounds better than IW...

Secret Agent Barbie
Track clues around the world with Barbie and solve this thrilling spy adventure! Your mission: catch the mysterious thief and stop the creation of an invisible suit. Solve mini-missions in cities like Paris, Tokyo, and more! Go undercover and help Barbie sneak, tumble, and blend into the surroundings as she pursues the thief from city to city. Decode clues, solve puzzles, and use high-tech gadgets like pink-vision glasses and a robot spy puppy to uncover the plot and save the day!
- http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Agent-Barbie-Jewel-Case/dp/B00017X75C/ref=pd_sim_vg_njs_title_1

Dave W
3rd Mar 2008, 23:37
Banned from the TTLG forums so you come terrorise this one, eh? ;)

Actually the ban stopped on the 23rd of January I think, I just never bothered going back because it stopped being fun ;)

(Also, I've been here since November which was before any of the ban rubbish on TTLG. Even before I got banned for a day because I told someone to get a real computer instead of a Mac)

Papy
4th Mar 2008, 01:27
Eidos would not focus the game for the PC market because it's so small in comparison to the console market.
Unfortunately, I agree with you, even though I think this is because of incompetence from Eidos' management.

The reaction on this forum is absolutely incredible. We know almost nothing about the game, it is not supposed to be out until the end of 2009, and yet there is a lot of people here. It would be easy to say it's because Deus Ex was pure genius, but the truth is it had far too much flaws for that. To me, the real reason we are still seeing this game from with our rose-tinted glasses is because it was one of the last game from what I could call the elitist video gaming era. There was a few after that, like the Gothic series I'm playing now, but games after 2000 were mostly targeted at the casual console gamers audience.

But what I think this forum, among others, shows, is that those same people, that I would consider as elitist gamers, are still alive... and they are desperate for a real gamer's game. I know I am. Unfortunately there is nothing on the market that I find truly satisfying. That's why I paid $30 for Gothic 2 two weeks ago, a game released in 2002. So even if the number of elitist PC gamers are much less than the number of casual console gamers, that market is wide open and virtually devoid of competition. Basically, it's a sure win. The only thing that could make a PC focused Deus Ex a flop is piracy.

Of course, there is one thing that would be even more intelligent from Eidos from a marketing point of view : sell a "director's cut" edition for the PC market with none of the compromises for casual gamers. Instead of selling the same one-size-fits-all pair of pants that doesn't really fit anyone, make several size of the same design so everyone can have a perfect fit! Now that would be pure genius! (I'm sarcastic here)

IcarusIsLookingForYou
4th Mar 2008, 02:05
I don't know every facet that goes in to making them, but if I had the capital I'd buy the rights to the Blood Franchise, get the brightest members of the original team, and re-establish said franchise as a PC-Only platform.
No excuses and NO Compromise.

If you and the development team have complete creative control, couldn't you just make a console version of the game that is just as good as the PC version? Games get dumbed down on consoles not necessarily because the platform is inferior, but because the devs themselves make a conscience choice to do so because of marketing. Your frustration shouldn't be directed toward those damned consoles but more towards the "shareholders first, gamers second" philosophy that's on the rise in the industry.

Although I love playing games on my PC, the performance stability of consoles always tends to win me over. Don't forget that not everyone has a killer rig either. There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving console owners a chance to play an amazing game. Unfortunately, the devs simply can't do that these days without making a dumbed down product due to pressure from the suits.

By the way, good choice on the franchise you'd pick. Blood rules.

Dave W
4th Mar 2008, 16:13
It's a pity it no longer runs on the Unreal Engine really, because then they could just release an SDK and leave it to users to mess about with the game and make it far more suited for the more die-hard Deus Ex fans. I can't see why there can't be an adequate compromise reached between the two platforms though. Invisible War was over-simplified, and Deus Ex was a bit overly-complicated - between the two would work fine on both platforms.

gamer0004
4th Mar 2008, 16:16
@ Papy: no offence, but the Gothic series :lmao: ?
I have played all 3 Gothic games, 1 and 2 were ok, and 3 completely destoryed my pc. And damn that game sucked.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
4th Mar 2008, 17:28
I don't see why the devs can't simply make the game they want to make. As long as the game is marketed well, people will buy it regardless of how "complicated" it is. Take a look at Oblivion. Granted, it definitely was simplified (when compared to Morrowind), but it still was a game that I would never imagine doing well on consoles. Sure enough, it became one of the 360's top sellers.

It's all about getting the word out and showing people that your game is the shiznight, that's what sells games. It's not about showing how even grandpa can play it, although I'm sure there are a few Nintendo execs that would disagree with me on that point. It seems to me that this idea of simplifying a game to make it sell well has only come about because many of the recent top selling games have been "simple" games. This may seem to be the case, but I don't think they sold because they were "dumb."

jd10013
4th Mar 2008, 20:58
Actually the ban stopped on the 23rd of January I think, I just never bothered going back because it stopped being fun ;)


I have to agree with you on that. TTLG really sucks. Nothing left there but a circle jerk of pretentious, stuck up, arrogant arseholes stuck in 1997.

jd10013
4th Mar 2008, 21:08
I think the problem is, a deep, involved game will alienate the console crowd. a consolized game will be passed up by the "elite" gamer. Those two groups of gamers are, IMHO, diametrically opposed. And that being the case, the devs will opt for the most profitable group.

And thats where I think Bioshock enters into this. I believe it was a serious attempt by Levine to make a game for both groups. And on balance, I'd say he did a pretty good job. Pretty good in the sense that it shows it just may be possible. who knows, maybe DX3 can take another step in that direction.

SageSavage
4th Mar 2008, 21:16
Well, I tend to agree on Bioshock but imo the key for successfully pleasing both groups lies in the amount of options to choose the level of complexity. Give the players an arcade-profile, an hardcore-profile and the ability to create profiles for anything in between.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
4th Mar 2008, 21:35
Bioshock still seemed too stripped down to me when compared to System Shock and DX. The story, art direction, and presentation were top notch. The gameplay, particularly the combat, not so much...

SageSavage
4th Mar 2008, 21:52
Bioshock still seemed too stripped down to me when compared to System Shock and DX. The story, art direction, and presentation were top notch. The gameplay, particularly the combat, not so much...Yeah, I agree but that's because we loved the complexity of SS and DX. Obviously there are people who are not into that and who they quite successfully tried to reach with the game too.

jd10013
4th Mar 2008, 21:57
Like I said, it was a good first attempt. What bioshock did more than anything else was provide money for future games like it, and show that a game aimed at both casual and serious gamers is possible. Hopefully, because of Bioshock, some studio will move closer still to a true dx/ss game. instead of moving away from one.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
4th Mar 2008, 22:43
Like I said, it was a good first attempt. What bioshock did more than anything else was provide money for future games like it, and show that a game aimed at both casual and serious gamers is possible. Hopefully, because of Bioshock, some studio will move closer still to a true dx/ss game. instead of moving away from one.

Agreed. I just hope I won't have to deal with constantly respawning meatbags and small environments for much longer until a true DX/SS game comes out.

newhenpal
4th Mar 2008, 22:58
Bioshock still seemed too stripped down to me when compared to System Shock and DX. The story, art direction, and presentation were top notch. The gameplay, particularly the combat, not so much...

Well one has to keep in mind that this game isn't TRYING to be those games, that's just something we like to think because it's made by the same group of people, it's appealing to the casual market and also introducing these elements so I wouldn't say it's stripped down. Just more action oriented, even if the combat and story weren't top notch neither were Deus Ex when you think about it.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
4th Mar 2008, 23:30
Well one has to keep in mind that this game isn't TRYING to be those games, that's just something we like to think because it's made by the same group of people, it's appealing to the casual market and also introducing these elements so I wouldn't say it's stripped down. Just more action oriented, even if the combat and story weren't top notch neither were Deus Ex when you think about it.

Say what you want about the combat in DX, I can totally understand that arguement, but the story rocked. So did the story in Bioshock, but the combat, which the gameplay revolved around, was unsatisfying casual or not. At least DX has the excuse of being released 8 years ago. Let's not also forget the fact that DX could be a totally satisfying experience without firing a single bullet. Its kind of difficult, and not fun, to try and do that in Bioshock.

matches81
5th Mar 2008, 01:19
If you and the development team have complete creative control, couldn't you just make a console version of the game that is just as good as the PC version? Games get dumbed down on consoles not necessarily because the platform is inferior, but because the devs themselves make a conscience choice to do so because of marketing. Your frustration shouldn't be directed toward those damned consoles but more towards the "shareholders first, gamers second" philosophy that's on the rise in the industry.

I think you're only partly right. Sure, the suits like a game that targets as many people as possible. But there's another problem: Consoles generally have rather restricted input methods compared to the PC. Okay, the PS3 (and probably the 360, too) would support keyboard and mouse if you put it in the game, but a console gamer normally doesn't want to use these things, because he wants to sit on the couch with that neat controller in his hands. So, releasing a console game that absolutely required keyboard and mouse probably would be pointless. As a result you have to tailor the input methods to a device with an analog stick instead of a mouse and about 10 buttons instead of a keyboard. That's pretty restrictive.


And on that "elitist" vs casual gamer debate: I wouldn't draw such a sharp line there. I do enjoy both types of games and I'm pretty sure lots of people do so, too. But I agree it's pretty frustrating that the "elitist" in me is slowly starving. Only one thing I don't like too much: Games, that obviously could be a great "elitist game", but got stripped down to feed the casual gamers, too. For me, Bioshock failed to feed both of these parts of me: For the casual part it was too "involving", for the "elitist" in me it was too simple and had too many "stupified" gameplay elements.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
5th Mar 2008, 01:52
Good point, Matches. However, I think the only real hurdle that the difference in interfaces poses is the issue of menus, which can be easily remedied. Morrowind, for instance, was ported to the Xbox with virtually no changes made to the gameplay. Sure, the menus were kind of clunky, but the experience remained pretty much intact. I agree that the PC interface is far more versatile than that of a console, but I don't feel that huge compromises must be made to compensate for the fact.

I couldn't agree with you more on Bioshock. Definitely one of those "so close, yet so far" moments in gaming. Actually, that's a good way to describe gaming in the last year.

evandevine
6th Mar 2008, 17:05
Even before I got banned for a day because I told someone to get a real computer instead of a Mac)

LOL new best friend

Necros
8th Mar 2008, 11:09
Eidos would not focus the game for the PC market because it's so small in comparison to the console market.
I disagree...

jd10013
8th Mar 2008, 18:02
I disagree...

disagree all you want, but console sales dwarf pc sales. and half of the pc game sales are probably games like the sims, and RTS games like age of empires that can't really be played on a console.

minus0ne
8th Mar 2008, 19:01
disagree all you want, but console sales dwarf pc sales. and half of the pc game sales are probably games like the sims, and RTS games like age of empires that can't really be played on a console.
I'd love to see some figures to back up this ever-persistent claim. All I've come up with so far is general sales and genre data for the US; http://www.theesa.com/facts/sales_genre_data.php

Kneo24
8th Mar 2008, 23:00
...the PC market because it's so small in comparison to the console market.

That's not necessarily true. There's no hard facts to prove that. The only data we've seen does not take into account downloads on the PC. The reason is that the publishers aren't releasing the numbers. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but they claim they're seeing a growth, not a decline. They also claim that their games for the PC are selling more than the games for console.

Those reports also don't take a lot of other things into consideration, however I don't feel like going there at the moment because I'm sure I'll get tl;dr moments from any sort of response.

My point is, you can't make those type of claims because the current data that we have is faulty.

Dave W
9th Mar 2008, 02:10
I disagree...

Read what I said, and note I'm not saying Eidos will ignore the PC market, but if push comes to shove they'd rather have a good 'console' game than a good 'PC' game.

As for figures, look at the comparative sales of games such as Bioshock, which is very relevant considering the target market for Deus Ex and Bioshock is roughly the same. Near the time of release the figure was about 20% on the PC, 80% console - that might've changed but still, the console market IS bigger.

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 03:10
I have no hard data, but considering all the best selling games are on console, It seems kind of hard to argue otherwise. how many millions of copies did halo 3 sell? or the GTA games? or the madden games, Bioshock?

you get the picture. now thats not to say pc games aren't an important market, its probably in the billion dollar range. but ALL the monster hits are console. and I'm not even going to get into the massive Wii sales.

Kneo24
9th Mar 2008, 12:45
I have no hard data, but considering all the best selling games are on console, It seems kind of hard to argue otherwise. how many millions of copies did halo 3 sell? or the GTA games? or the madden games, Bioshock?

you get the picture. now thats not to say pc games aren't an important market, its probably in the billion dollar range. but ALL the monster hits are console. and I'm not even going to get into the massive Wii sales.

Halo 3 isn't on PC yet as far as I know. And if it is, I don't think it was released anywhere close to the console port, So naturally, the console version will sell more.

Sports games typically don't sell well on the PC. They never have.

GTA games have been buggy for their initial release on PC, which drives people away. It was either GTA III or San Andreas where you had to edit some files or something as a workaround just to save games and then load them properly. It took them forever to patch it too. Would you buy a game like that? I know I wouldn't.

Bioshock? Where do I begin? For starters, restrictive DRM (drives people to not purchase the game). Simplified game (drives PC gamers away), rehash of System Shock 2 (why would I pay for a rehash of that?), and I'm not exactly sure if the sales figures takes downloads into account. Any current data I can find is telling me that either 2 million copies have shipped or sold, which are two different meanings, and the current numbers aren't broken down.

And the Wii? What games does the Wii have that you can find on the PC? If you're just talking about the console in general, how do you begin to compare a console sale to a PC sale? A lot of people build their own PC's.

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 13:29
I'm not sure what point your trying to argue. Are you saying pc games sell more than console games?

Kneo24
9th Mar 2008, 16:13
No, I'm saying you can't make claims like that when all of the data isn't available. I don't think it really matters anyway.

In the end, there's a lot of different models to look at as far as revenue is concerned. A certain game might sell more on platform A, but it could generate more revenue on platform B.

I think that only individual publishers and developers have any idea on what platform works for them, not for the industry as a whole.

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 17:46
using the example I gave your, madden, halo 3, bioshock, GTA, I don't see how anybody can argue that PC game sales come anywhere close to console sales. PC title sales are usually measured in the hundreds of thousands. Console unit sales are often measured in the millions.

and thats the whole point here. because there is such a huge discrepancy in PC to console sales, more times than not the developers focus on the console version. and that will probably be the case with DX3.

Kneo24
11th Mar 2008, 23:35
Your examples were crap. Valve's PC sales are more than their console sales.

A sports game. Sports game aren't natively PC feeling. So who cares? There, you have one of four. Good job.

Halo 3. Hasn't been released on PC yet, and when it is, it won't nearly sell as much because a lot of people who are interested in the game will already own it. It also had a very very large marketing campaign behind it (which is unusual for any game, be it PC or console). Since it's an anomaly, it's a moot point.

Bioshock - Sales figures don't include digital distribution. Also, sales figures look at units sold more often than profit made. Digital distribution is immensely more profitable than shelf space at a retail outlet. If I sell less of something on one platform, but also make more of a profit that way, I'd be more inclined to go with the more profitable avenue.

GTA Games - PC ports are often buggy. Buggy games get a bad rep and sell less.

matches81
12th Mar 2008, 11:17
I have to agree with Kneo here:
1. It's simply wrong that the PC market is smaller than the console market, because probably everybody who has a console will also have a PC standing around, plus there are lots of people who only play on PC. It's probably the other way around: My guess is that the potential market for a PC game is bigger than the market of all 3 consoles combined.
2. PC games can sell really well. Take a look at Half-Life 1 (8 million+ sold so far) and 2 (4 million+ sold so far), The Sims (16 millions), The Sims 2 (13 millions) and so on. It's simply untrue that console games are the only ones that can sell in the millions. Problem is: Many PC games are either bug-ridden or feature a DRM scheme that is so out-of-scope and overdone that it drives most of the more tech-savvy gamers away. An example par excellence would be the game that got mentioned here pretty often: Bioshock. The PC version features a protection scheme that is simply unheard of and doesn't even begin to comply with its own EULA. Lots of people can't even run the game properly, although they have the proper hardware to do so. The only games that sell that well are the true blockbusters of the year on PC, because these are the games that "force" PC gamers to overlook all the issues probably involved, and even those games are probably selling less than they would have 5 years ago, because many people I know are simply fed up with all the crap that gets thrown at us for buying a game.

A few game developers proclaim PC gaming dead while it is still the only gaming platform that allows for proper mods (huge part of the succes of Half-Life probably, as well as other PC games) and mod development, and is the cradle of every tech improvement out there. It's easier to proclaim something dead than to fix the issues you yourself did bring onto the table, I guess. Bugs and simply hilarious protection schemes drive away a lot of people from PC gaming, both are issues that originate at the game developers and publishers themselves, not necessarily the platform.
Remove those issues and my guess would be that PC gaming wouldn't be any smaller than consoles.

jd10013
12th Mar 2008, 21:54
you really give me a headache kneo. listen, as I'm tire of repeating myself and am only going to say it one last time. CONSOLE GAME SALES DWARF PC GAME SALES. period, that all, nothing else. I'm not getting into (and never have) the potential for PC sales, or my desire. just the facts. and the facts are that CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. one more time man, CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. I really don't know what your going on about or why. the only thing I've posted in this thread is that IN MY OPINION, THE DEV'S OF DX3 WILL FOCUS MORE ON THE CONSOLE VERSION. Why? BECAUSE CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES.

now would you kindly get off my back.
oh, and here is the proof I'm sure you'll demand:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/28/pc-game-sales-only-14-of-industry-in-2007/

matches81
12th Mar 2008, 23:31
you really give me a headache kneo. listen, as I'm tire of repeating myself and am only going to say it one last time. CONSOLE GAME SALES DWARF PC GAME SALES. period, that all, nothing else. I'm not getting into (and never have) the potential for PC sales, or my desire. just the facts. and the facts are that CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. one more time man, CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. I really don't know what your going on about or why. the only thing I've posted in this thread is that IN MY OPINION, THE DEV'S OF DX3 WILL FOCUS MORE ON THE CONSOLE VERSION. Why? BECAUSE CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES.

now would you kindly get off my back.
oh, and here is the proof I'm sure you'll demand:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/28/pc-game-sales-only-14-of-industry-in-2007/
I don't mean to be annoying or anything like that, but look at it this way:
There are currently seven platforms alive and kicking:
PS2, PS3, 360, Wii, DS, PSP and the PC.
From that point of view, 14% of the industry's sales going to PC isn't that bad, especially when you consider the huge Wii boom that probably "hurt" all other platforms considerably. Even combining the PSs and the handhelds, there are at least 5 platforms out there, not two. So, saying PC games make "only" 14% of the industry is a bit misleading in my opinion, because it implies there are only the PC and one mysterious console out there ;)

Still, basically you're right: If DX3 will be multi-platform, the developers will probably design the game for consoles first, probably for 360. Problem with that is that it probably will affect PC sales in a bad way. I've yet to see a console game that worked really really well on the PC and didn't leave me a PC gamer with that awkward taste afterwards. Well, okay, I actually liked the new Prince of Persias or Tomb Raiders on PC, so I guess I could say those modern platformers, i.e. action-adventures, work reasonably well as a cross-platform title. Aside from those, however, I've never played a console game on the PC that didn't leave me feeling somewhat screwed for the sake of consoles.

Kneo24
13th Mar 2008, 00:04
you really give me a headache kneo. listen, as I'm tire of repeating myself and am only going to say it one last time. CONSOLE GAME SALES DWARF PC GAME SALES. period, that all, nothing else. I'm not getting into (and never have) the potential for PC sales, or my desire. just the facts. and the facts are that CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. one more time man, CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES. I really don't know what your going on about or why. the only thing I've posted in this thread is that IN MY OPINION, THE DEV'S OF DX3 WILL FOCUS MORE ON THE CONSOLE VERSION. Why? BECAUSE CONSOLE GAMES OUT SELL PC GAMES.

now would you kindly get off my back.
oh, and here is the proof I'm sure you'll demand:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/28/pc-game-sales-only-14-of-industry-in-2007/

Wow, figures from North America. I didn't realize the rest of the world wasn't relevant. The article also states that it doesn't track digital sales, which is a point I keep trying to get through to you. (It's bolded, actually take the time to read it this time since you clearly didn't read it when I posted it, and you clearly didn't read it in the article.)

I'm giving you a headache, good. It probably means that for once you are thinking about an opposing view point.

My point stands, you can't make such claims without all of the data being available.

EpeSeta
16th Mar 2008, 16:30
The problem in console & PC games isn't that console gamers are ignorant jerks who just want to kick some ass, it's that the developers (and a large chunk of PC gamers, for that matter**** ) THINK they are. Oh what a wonderful gaming world it would be if they'd realize that.

Also, as an ardent fan of the Halo series I must say I'm very annoyed by lightbringerrs use of the term "HALO crowd". They're good games, if you give them the chance. They actually have a story. You can like it without being a moron. Indeed, DX and Halo are my two favourite games series.