In regards to the Bombcast (which I just got around to listening to last night), they aren't criticizing the PC as a platform for playing games because they don't like it, they're simply stating fact, and the fact is piracy is an incredible problem on the PC. The demise of retail PC gaming could certainly help the cause. A shift to online distribution platforms, or more specifically, Steam, would stave off some of that, but Steam isn't perfectly impervious either.
Even the Xbox 360 is fairly simple to crack, so long as you're intending to play offline single player games. I don't exactly keep up with 360 piracy methods, but even if you have to install a modchip in order to circumvent piracy checks, either installing one yourself or even buying a pre-modded console would be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run than buying $50-$60 games every few months. If people are cut off from their PC pirated copies, I'm sure the more determined ones would just make the switch over to something new. Then again, the whole focus of these anti piracy methods has long since switched from "stop them" to "delay them," and hope the difficulty of circumventing the DRM turns away the casual pirater.
Personally, I don't care what happens. I like playing certain games on my PC, but if everything makes the switch over to console, it's not like my PC serves no other purpose anymore. Besides, the biggest advantage to PC over console gaming, the input method of keyboard/mouse, isn't exactly impossible to achieve on game consoles. They could conceivably still put out certain game types on consoles and allow you to plug in your PC controls through the magical powers of the universal serial bus! The other advantage: insane resolutions, anti-aliasing, and awesome framerates, well, I could live without that if every game was designed with one hardware set in mind and focus was put into optimizing it as best as possible for that particular platform. As long as everyone is getting the same experience, for better or for worse, I'm not worried about it.
Active disgust of pc gaming and pc gamers on the bombcast
it irks me that certain people believe that the pc is the only platform on earth that is pirated regularly. piracy isn't just a problem for the personal computer - it can affect all media. it also bothers me that people tend to believe that all pirates do what they do out of greed or simply to tarnish sales; this is not always the case. i will openly admit that i have pirated games in the past because, at the time, i had not a single penny to my name.
piracy is not pc exclusive. it is a growing problem for all platforms, and it cannot be stopped, despite the hundreds of large scale attempts. all you have to do is hit up your favourite search engine and type in "360/wii/ps3 mod chip". microsoft, for example, periodically release patches to trump these pirates. If it has gotten to the point where microsoft are actually releasing patches (a rare occurrence - patches are usually only released when there is huge demand, the primary reason why MGS2 is still not backwards compatible *shakes fist angrily* ) then it must be bad, but do we have statistics for that shoved into our collective faces on a five minute cycle? no, we do not.
it is my opinion that there is an ascending bias towards console gaming, and that judgements on the pc are thrown around from a position of ignorance. And thus concludes rant.
My guess is that you probably won't see a lot of huge, big budget games on PC in the future. Smaller games (something like Mount & Blade, Sins of a Solar Empire and even Cryostasis) don't attract nearly as much pirates, that is why you won't see any copyright protection systems on Stardock published games.
PC gamers are their own worst enemy. Between the irrational needs to be able to install a game more than 5 times, treating any kind of DRM like it's a virus, and then downloading everything under the sun, it's a no-win situation for publishers to try and do anything on PC. PC gaming isn't what it used to be for one reason, the web. The ability to download gigabytes of data in less than an hour, along with an interconnected community that tirelessly works at defeating copy protection makes the idea of a profitable PC game a joke.
There just isn't any way to make the community happy, so maybe the lack of games will show them.
The GB guys are old-school PC gamers, make no mistake, they just aren't the typical PC douchebags that seem to never be satisfied and can't stop complaining.
I loved my PC gaming days on the C64 and through the DOS days. Some of those PC games of the mid 90s are the best gaming moments of my life, but nowadays I'm ashamed of what the PC gaming community has become, and it's clear that PC gaming is going to all but disappear for the majority of games that are on consoles - and it's the community's fault.
I have zero problem if big-budget titles like AC2 and Modern Warfare stop coming to pc.
Just give me some TF2 or Dystopia, a little Starcraft 2 and I'm good.
Yeah, asking for the ability to install a game more than 5 times is irrational. The funny thing is you'd be the same person who'd cry fould if Sony or MS limited game installs in the same manner on the console." PC gamers are their own worst enemy. Between the irrational needs to be able to install a game more than 5 times, treating any kind of DRM like it's a virus, and then downloading everything under the sun, it's a no-win situation for publishers to try and do anything on PC. PC gaming isn't what it used to be for one reason, the web. The ability to download gigabytes of data in less than an hour, along with an interconnected community that tirelessly works at defeating copy protection makes the idea of a profitable PC game a joke. There just isn't any way to make the community happy, so maybe the lack of games will show them. The GB guys are old-school PC gamers, make no mistake, they just aren't the typical PC douchebags that seem to never be satisfied and can't stop complaining. I loved my PC gaming days on the C64 and through the DOS days. Some of those PC games of the mid 90s are the best gaming moments of my life, but nowadays I'm ashamed of what the PC gaming community has become, and it's clear that PC gaming is going to all but disappear for the majority of games that are on consoles - and it's the community's fault. "
Games definitely aren't profitable on the PC. That's why it only harbors the most profitable games of all times and currently the most profitable game out there. Yup you're definitely right, that's why companies keep making games for the PC, because there is zero profit. They're just idiots and want to hemorrhage money left, right and centre.
Genius.
You don't like PC gamers and the community? Good, because trust me buddy, we don't like people like you either, you know, the ones that spread bullshit and defamatory comments about the platform and its players.
@Sushbag said:
" @iAmJohn said:Absolutely incorrect. I remember specifically because it was the first time I ever had reason to be angry with the guys. Yes, they didn't say "we support the annihilation of dedicated severs the world over," but the attitude, if you recall the quick look on MW2 PC, was clearly dismissive and borderline console fanboyish:" @Al3xand3r: oh you mean the MW2 PC issue where if you actually listened to it, you'd know they never said they supported it or were against it and instead just focused on "this is what they're doing; this is why they're doing it"? "
Jeff Gerstmann (on dedicated servers in MW2): "...if they leave it up to the users then you run into situations where, if you're just some dude you doesn't necessarily want to be part of some weird community of dudes and play on a private server, you're jumping into...less than ideal basically. It kinda feels like PC gaming is growing up and joining the way the world works..." Yeah let's just support the outright removal of the key reason why CoD multiplayer was popular on the PC, which, in case you forgot, was the platform CoD originated on. Let's just ignore ten years of Counter-Strike. Let's just forget Quake or Unreal ever happened, naahhhh there weren't very many people playing those games anyway. Let's "grow up" man and get with it. Gerstmann revealed in that instant that he has absolutely, 100% no regard for PC gamers that visit his website, he might as well have said, "I am out of touch with computer games and the past 15 years of online FPS games because I like my Xbox." It never entered his mind that PC gamers financially supported the Call of Duty series, and then were slapped in the face by the publisher and developer in spite of it. Did he even get the absurdity of a Quake 3 engine based game not having a server browser, the humor of that? It's the reason why me and none of my friends bought MW2. They could easily have implemented their new system while retaining dedicated server support. Now, Shoemaker clarified the statements that were made, saying that he didn't support what was happening but that it was simply the way Activision was doing it. That was very good to hear, and I'm glad they have Shoemaker because at least they have someone who hasn't dismissed the PC as a relic to be avoided at all costs. But Gerstmann's comments were inexcusable, and the OP of this thread has every right to make this complaint; this website is clearly console-focused, to the chagrin of PC gamers who have trusted the reviews and opinions of the team behind it since the Gamespot days. It's just something you understand, you accept it. I still like them, I certainly still agree with most of Gerstmann's review scores for example, but I do wish they would give a shit about PC games, just like the OP. "
The gauntlet has just been thrown.
^ why would u quote that post since its so shitty? irrational need to install more than 5 times? limited installs is plain dumb, wut if u reformat, the game get corrupt, and god forbid u wanna play the game later?
and yes pc gaming is hurt by piracy but xbox 360 is almost as bad, i know just as many 360 pirates.
whole post is silly, if its a good game people will pay for it...
I just bought a 3000$ PC for gaming a few months ago. I love pc gaming and I would be really disappointed if pc gaming was eventually phased out as many people seem to think is going to happen.
Everything They said about PC gaming on the Podcast is true, and I am just playing games on my PC.
There is a lot of piracy on PC games? Yep
Ubisoft are fucking morons? Yep
Why would you want to play Ubisoft's terrible games on the PC anyway? I have no idea
Ubisoft should stop making games for the PC? I don't think anyone cares.
People shouldn't make single player games on the PC? Yep its pretty stupid unless you are Blizzard or Valve cause they actually have talent.
I don't mean to go back to an argument from 6 months ago, but how is it a slap in the face for a company to not include a feature? The worst thing about PC gamers is the sense of entitlement.
"We've been playing games on the PC the same way for 10 years, and now they want to change things because it makes good business sense? Well, FUCK THEM!"
Activision and Ubisoft have the right to do whatever they damn well want with their products. It doesn't matter if the PC market is where the Call of Duty brand started. That doesn't mean they can't design and market their game for the console market now that the PC market isn't what it was 10 years ago. They own the game. You pay them for the privilege to play it. Not the other way around. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. They're not obligated to release a product that has the features that YOU demand. They don't "owe" you anything. And it's not "insulting", it's business. That's how it works.
And how is what Jeff said "inexcusable"? Online multiplayer games have changed a lot in the last 10 years and consoles are leading the way on that, whether you like it or want to admit it or not. Games like Modern Warfare have more people playing them on the 360 and PS3 than on the PC. That's a fact. So, why is it inexcusable to say that PC gamers should quit whining and get used to companies making their games for the console market and then porting the same experience over to PC instead of having a totally different experience on the PC. The market has changed. Deal with it.
PC gamers (like yourself) going on self righteous bouts about entitlement and "slaps in the face", and companies and websites needing to pay more attention to your desires is childish. You do need to grow up.
Or to put it in terms you'll understand:
qq more
*braces for massive flames*
The PC is getting more niche. I accepted that years ago. The only thing that turns my crank is when people are ignorant of the unique strengths of the open, modular nature of the platform and the complexity that it came bring to bear. And when people honestly think you can pull off the amazing things with a controller that you can with a mouse. But there are worthwhile tradeoffs for going console.
As long as games come out for pc that exploit the pc's strengths, who gives a crap. This isn't a competition for whose platform is more mainstream. Or it shouldn't be.
@RsistncE: " The funny thing is you'd be the same person who'd cry fould if Sony or MS limited game installs in the same manner on the console." But the point is moot on consoles, since we don't actually install the games the same way.
"That's why it only harbors the most profitable games of all times and currently the most profitable game out there." The only two PC games in the top ten best selling list of all time are The Sims and The Sims 2. Everything else is console games. Last I checked, World of Warcraft was a few million copies short of The Sims in terms of sales. But WoW is also a bit of a strange duck, with the monthly fee. I'm not sure how you'd compare WoW revenue with something like The Sims and its expansion packs. Still, beyond WoW and The Sims, no PC game has sold anywhere near the same numbers as games on the consoles.
I find I agree with Gerstmann on the maturity angle. The idea that devs owe anything to gamers based on the platform the game originated on is ridiculous. PC gamers are mostly whining because they no longer have the clout they once did. They can't dictate demands to the developer, because devs like IW are basically releasing the PC version because it's a legacy. And rather than being thankful that their game is still being made available to them, even though the devs aren't making nearly as much money on them as they used to, PC gamers whine endlessly about not getting things just the way they want it. Even though PC gamers themseleves don't even agree on what that way is. So yeah, it's immature.
Thankfully, not all PC gamers are so arrogant and childish, acting like teenagers who think they know better than the devs how to make games. Devs don't always get it right, but I trust them more than most gamers.
I actually was referring directly to those two games. Either way, profit is profit, and WoW in particular pulls in ridiculous amounts of profit, profits untouchable by any console games out there today. Additionally there is a lot of common sense involved I think here: if releasing a game for the PC was not more profitable than releasing that game for only the console, then it wouldn't be happening.
Also, I agree that entitlement can reek pretty bad. I understand that people would be irked by IW trying to introduce (even force) console type systems to control it's customer base (hell it pisses me off) but claiming entitlement is lame. Instead I just vote with my wallet. Sure I already told you how I believe one vote like this is completely useless, but from what I've seen most developers have seen the
angry backlash Activision got as a result of it's actions and has chosen a much smarter route. Either way if I don't like a game I won't buy it, pretty simple. Overall I think that PC gamers actually want the same thing: no shitty DRM, dedicated servers and other staples of the PC platform to be supported in games.
Also you should keep in mind it isn't solely devs who make decisions on a games development. Corporate interest when it comes to things like DRM, and even dedicated servers, plays a significant role and I for one do not trust corporations to ever make decisions that are good for me or people as a whole.
" @oldschool said:Damn straight. I am not printing my own booklets. I want a nice glossy one." @Linkyshinks said:damn straight the second I can't see my games on a shelf is the second I give the finger to games I need to see, feel, and smell my games mmmmm the smell of a fresh game booklet "" @oldschool said:Okay, I have heard of that and it will be easy to hate, in fact, I hate it already - not compatible with my internet and how the hell am I going to make a fort out of download games :/ "" @trophyhunter said:" @oldschool: 2011 will be a good year to hate onlive "So, when do we start hating on it? I don't want to start too early and look like an idiot (I don't even know what onlive is - really I don't and I can't be stuffed looking it up). "
It's a new videogame streaming service which requires no hardware, all you need is a broadband connection and a low cost hub that you stick your controller into. OnLive "
@Al3xand3r said:
" You could make a fort out of the hard drives it takes to store them. "Shit man, how many games can you store on 1 or even 2Tb hard drives? Going to be a small fort and little deterrent to rampaging fanboys.
Like I said, The Sims and WoW are the only two games. It's difficult to make a sweeping statement about PC gaming based on two games that are, within the gaming market, relatively unique. Sure, WoW makes a lot of money. No one said otherwise. But the vast majority of profitable titles are on the consoles, not the PC. And games released for both consoles and PC have shown that sales on consoles are higher. That's all I'm saying.
As for installs, I'm not sure you understand the point. The fact that console games aren't installed the same way is precisely the point. It's impossible to compare the two, because their behaviors are different.
Your vote with your wallet wasn't useless, though. If other gamers vote with their wallets the same way, then the market would change. The market is made up of individual decisions just like the one you made. By expressing your market preference by not purchasing a game, you're participating in the market. Sure, it wouldn't make a difference if you were the only one making that decision, but I'm sure others are making the same decision as you. Market forces are both collective and individual. If your opinion is widespread, others will make similar decisions. I have no doubt that's the case. The only way we can express our preferences in a way that matters to the devs is to vote with our wallets. That is precisely why games that sell badly don't get sequels. Not because some vast group of gamers simultaneously decided not to buy the game, but because hundreds of thousands of individuals made the decision on their own.
Corporations have to balance the interests of the gamers, the developers, and the shareholders. The idea that they have an interest in appeasing one over the other is not born out by reality. Games need to sell. In the grand scheme of things, keeping the gamers happy is their primary goal, because that translates into sales, the primary guide by which game success is derived. All-in-all, corporations do a very good job of balancing those things. In the end, though, they only have to satisfy the majority of gamers. If your perspective on a certain feature is outside the mainstream or is overtly at odds with their other clear priorities, however, be prepared to be disappointed.
I think we aren't understanding one another. What I mean to say is that clearly PC games are very profitable still or you wouldn't get so many major releases on them. Are they as profitable as console games? Not in the case of ports no but when it comes to games made my Valve or even Battlefield games, it's quite clear that the platform can outperform either console in sales or even incredibly both in some cases.
I agree to an extent on voting with your wallet. I just don't have faith in people I guess.
I understand that Corporations are not there to appease anyone but it should be very clear that a corporation, even though it is legally recognized as an individual, does not have any moral stance or ground. They simply have one loyalty and that is to the shareholders. Unfortunately as a result Corporations care as much for a human life (or anything else for that matter) as much as they would for the life of a fly. The reality is that they can't be trusted because decisions are made solely with the end result of increasing profit to pay dividends to preferred shareholders and continue operations. Whether that means treating you like gold or shit all depends on which is more profitable.
Yeah let's just support the outright removal of the key reason why CoD multiplayer was popular on the PC, which, in case you forgot, was the platform CoD originated on. Let's just ignore ten years of Counter-Strike. Let's just forget Quake or Unreal ever happened, naahhhh there weren't very many people playing those games anyway. Let's "grow up" man and get with it. Gerstmann revealed in that instant that he has absolutely, 100% no regard for PC gamers that visit his website, he might as well have said, "I am out of touch with computer games and the past 15 years of online FPS games because I like my Xbox."Wait, sorry, but do you actually think the key reason that Call of Duty multiplayer was popular on the PC was because it had a server browser?
@JokerSmilez:
When you build a car, you put an engine in it because that's what makes it work. When you make a sandwich, you put something in between the bread slices, that's what makes it a sandwich. When you have an online FPS game, people host dedicated servers for it; that's just the way it is, a developer or publisher doesn't just decide to change that willy nilly and call it a day. An overly restrictive matchmaking system that kills community is bad enough, to say nothing of removing any ability to create custom content for the game. These things are core aspects of PC shooters, you don't mess around with that unless you have something really, really good. Dedicated servers were not a problem to be fixed; in fact they fix the problems that matchmaking has inherently, as a good server won't have insolent children, griefers, etc. A good dedicated server can be cultivated into a place where friends go and have fun, chill out in their free time, that's an aspect that PC shooter fans aren't just going to forget about; it's the whole point.
It's business? They don't owe me anything? Don't buy it if I don't like it, vote with my dollars? What do you think you're informing me of something new? I didn't buy it. None of my friends did. I pirated it to play the game without having to spend money on it. It's a good game all around, I hate to say in spite of the overlying problems. Also: I'm a gamer, I play the best games regardless of platform, I build gaming PC's and I own all the consoles. I also happen to have a long history playing online FPS games which is why this issue I think is worth posting about, I have advantage over people who only know console games, people who don't know any better. Don't try and argue with someone like me about online shooters, don't tell me "gaming has changed, mannnn!" I realize the industry has changed, evolved in ten years. But with respect to this issue, moving from dedicated boxes to a matchmaking system is like moving from a Ferrari to a Prius.
Quit whining? Accept a console experience on the PC? ........................................................................uh....no? Yea. No. That is flat-out not acceptable. I play PC games to get a better experience than people who only play on consoles, and there are developers who gladly cater to my market on the PC, don't you worry about it.
If dedicated servers are "required" for FPS games to "make the car go", how do you explain MW2 - without dedicated servers - being the best selling and most popular FPS of ALL TIME?
Maybe you will see some developers continue to support the PC and the dedicated server idea for a few more years, and it's certainly on the decline. As time goes on, it will make less and less financial sense for them to continue to devote development resources to it. They're not going to keep making games to suit your preferences out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially when if a game is good (as you admit) but lacks a feature you prefer you just steal the game instead of paying for it. And by the way, "voting with your wallet" does not mean "steal any game that isn't exactly the way you want" - that is the definition of an entitlement complex: you think you deserve to play the game, but you refuse to pay for it. The minute you start stealing games because they don't include features, you lose ALL credibility. That doesn't send the message to include a service you want. That sends the message the PC is an unstable platform to develop for and should be avoided.
Obviously match making can be improved. That's the whole point. Countless companies are working on doing just that, to reduce the need for dedicated servers. Match making is the way the gaming industry and multiplayer games are moving. It's still early and there's still lots of room for improvement. But this is the way.
And how long do you think those developers will "gladly cater to your market" when that market continues to shrink and be made up of a higher and higher percentage of thieves, like yourself? How long before they tell you to fuck off and focus on the consoles that currently has a MUCH higher return on their investment dollars?
Maybe the industry will eventually swing back towards the PC, but it's not looking good right now. With splits in the market because of differing technology in everyone's computers, higher penetration of consoles in homes, cost of maintaining a technically proficient computer, more and more people like yourself with zero regard for the industry or the products it produces, what interest do gaming companies have in continuing to produce for the PC market?
I don't know what to say, if you think dedicated servers are a "feature" then this thread is like me trying to explain theoretical physics to a child. It's pretty much going to be hopeless. At the end of the day, games are about having fun, but I only like to play the very best games, and if your standards were as high as mine then you would understand why the MW2 thing was an issue that warrants not paying money for an Activision shooter again.
Gabe Newell summed it up very well: It's about publishers providing their customers with a valuable service. PC gamers are people who spend thousands of dollars on a gaming computer, and 50 bucks a month on broadband internet. They have the money to buy games. But if a game isn't worth buying, well, you see what happens. It's about quality products, publishers and developers you can trust. After MW2, I know not to trust Activsion and Infinity Ward, simple as that. I know the majority of gamers still bought the game, I mean, it is a big brand name with a substantial marketing budget, this is capitalism after all. But as I said, I have higher than average standards. For example, unless Activision publishes something better than TF2 why am I going to pay them for it when Valve does it 100 times better, giving me a better service for less money, giving me more fun without me feeling ripped off?
i grew up on pc games, and i still play them on a regular basis. but if i were in charge at a publishing company, i'd skip the pc versions. they're a huge liability. the options are limited to losing a lot of sales from piracy, provoking rage from your fans with an invasive drm, or both.
My point about PC game profitability is exactly what you said: it is profitable mostly on very large, popular releases. You see such big releases because they are guaranteed to move a lot of copies regardless. What you do not see on the PC (like you used to) are more mid-range, experimental games, or mid-budget FPSs. Those are now almost completely shifted to consoles. What you see on PCs are niche titles, throwaways, and blockbusters. Not much in-between. There are a lot of reasons for this, of course, so it's hard to pin down precisely. But profitability is one of them. We're still seeing fewer and fewer big releases on the PC, and those are almost always accompanied by higher-profitability versions on consoles. It's the way things are right now. Maybe that will change, but it's very clear that midrange publishers aren't making money on the PC like they used to be. That's all I'm claiming.
I think you misunderstand corporations. Yes, they have loyalty to their shareholders, and legally they are treated much like an individual (not completely). But corporations are run by people. And those people do have moral views. A great variety of them. And as any group working on a project, they need to come to some kind of working relationship with each other despite those conflicts. Parts of the corporation are focused on profitability, yes. But not all of them. And in most corporations, there is a strong commitment to quality. Quality means more customers, and more customers means higher profits. The idea that any corporation "just wants to make money," is silly. It doesn't work that way. There is no conflict between making good products and making money. They know that. Within any corporation there is going to be internal conflict over how that is done best. Corporations that find a way of reconciling those conflicts make good products. Not all corporations succeed in that. You'll find in any corporation, the people working hardest on projects really believe in them, and want to do a good job. They want you, the gamer, to love their game. They want it to be cool, and fun. And the shareholders do as well. But all of this is an act of compromise. Sure, we'd all love a huge blockbuster game that gives us everything we want, and get it cheap. But that isn't possible. So the corporation must compromise to give us the most they can while making money. The compromise might not give us what we want, and it might occasionally impose restrictions on us, but we should be willing to grant them a degree of leeway so they can continue making games. Because we want to play them.
" @JokerSmilez: I don't know what to say, if you think dedicated servers are a "feature" then this thread is like me trying to explain theoretical physics to a child. It's pretty much going to be hopeless. At the end of the day, games are about having fun, but I only like to play the very best games, and if your standards were as high as mine then you would understand why the MW2 thing was an issue that warrants not paying money for an Activision shooter again. Gabe Newell summed it up very well: It's about publishers providing their customers with a valuable service. PC gamers are people who spend thousands of dollars on a gaming computer, and 50 bucks a month on broadband internet. They have the money to buy games. But if a game isn't worth buying, well, you see what happens. It's about quality products, publishers and developers you can trust. After MW2, I know not to trust Activsion and Infinity Ward, simple as that. I know the majority of gamers still bought the game, I mean, it is a big brand name with a substantial marketing budget, this is capitalism after all. But as I said, I have higher than average standards. For example, unless Activision publishes something better than TF2 why am I going to pay them for it when Valve does it 100 times better, giving me a better service for less money, giving me more fun without me feeling ripped off? "You prefer a format that's more expensive, as it caters to an audience that can afford more great games, yet you're refusing to buy anything, if it's not Team Fortress 2? I don't blame you for not wanting to play Modern Warfare 2 on PC, by the way. I wouldn't either. While you're stuck awaiting a game that matches the quality of a three year old piece of software, how exactly do you propose that you'd make a valid comparison without first playing any of the games the competition has to offer? If I sat around waiting for games to surpass my favorite titles in quality, I'd be sitting in front of my NES playing Super Mario Bros 3 right now. Anyway, if I could afford a PC at the moment, I'm not so sure I'd bite the bullet for Team Fortress 2 alone. It works well enough on the Xbox 360 for me to save a few thousand dollars to put towards the remainder of the year's excellent games. I guess it becomes hard to appreciate the value of a game through review copies, though. So what do I know?I have just as limited a perspective as anyone else. My only PC experiences anymore seem to be RTS games and games designed for Net Books, which I'm totally fine with.
" Basically, there needs to be a fundamental change in PC game distribution to deal with the piracy issue so devs feel comfortable releasing on the PC. There simply hasn't been a lot of innovation on the PC, because the developers have focused on the larger, more stable market on consoles. "This does seem to be the heart of the PC debacle of the past few years. Companies that have been able to innovate and update their methods have been successful but companies that treat the PC like the console get punished. They're two fundamentally different games right now, and most companies (in fact, none really) have the resources or drive to divide their focus between the two. You only need to look as far as the god-of-things-PC company Valve to see what can happen when someone really understands their market (lets leave L4D2 alone) and is able to grow and mature with it. On the other hand, you have companies like UbiSoft who focus on the console side of things and who shoe horn games onto the PC solely for extra cash. But these companies are losing less and less interest as the PC market shrinks and pirating on the PC gets easier and easier. And Jeff was right, maybe certain companies shouldn't bother with the PC anymore. Its not like major innovations are happening on that platform anymore, and for most companies it doesn't justify the headache. While some companies (rather Valve, Blizzard, and niche strategy developers) can profit off the PC, not many other people can.
So, yea, GiantBomb is a bit biased towards the console. But I don't see it as a major hatred against the platform, they just 1) need to cater to the largest market share 2) understand that its a platform in limbo that's not doing too hot.
I'm digusted by the length of posts in this topic.
I think PC gamers are shifty-eyed and untrustworthy. Hence, I treat them with contempt and disgust. Take take Snider guy, for example. There's a sleezeball if I've ever seen one! Are you reading this Dave? I hate you so much! Grrrr!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment