Shadow Complex

The one to hate is Ballmer, for bribing companies to cannibalize his core market (Windows). One of the worst CEOs of all time.

Quoting SaberCherry,

reply 1

The one to hate is Ballmer, for bribing companies to cannibalize his core market (Windows). One of the worst CEOs of all time.

I don't really hate Ballmer, because he tends to respect developers. I do not believe that his actions have directly had a negative impact on PC gaming.

Also, Saber Marionette?

Well to be fair there is a lot more money to be made in the console world if your titles are sought after - Gears of War and it's sequel are two of the highest selling games on Xbox 360. Look at Demigod's launch where 100,000 people pirated the game before it was offically released compared to 10,000 paying customer, and it ruined the experience for the legit users. With the consoles, you're forced to purchase the game because you need to physically mod your console to play burnt games, and doing so voids any and all online functionality - at least in the 360's case.

Quoting Melchiz,

reply 2

Also, Saber Marionette?

Yes, though my avatar is from Ginga Ojousama Yuna.

quoting post

I am quite upset about this game. While I lost all respect for Epic ages ago, they continue to demonstrate that they do not care about PC gaming. A company that owes its existence and success to PC gaming has abandoned its original followers to milk the console market. I'm sure they are getting a nice bonus for making this an Xbox LIVE-exclusive title, or hell, maybe they aren't, but they don't want to spend the pennies to port it to the PC.

For those unfamiliar with the game, it was intended to release on the PC and 360, but the PC version has since been dropped. Why the hell is Epic Games a top-tier member of the PC Gaming Alliance? Ugh.

I am quite upset about this game too.

It should've cost more. I had a blast.

I have never heard about this game. However the reason is the development of the PC games is very expensive. If you create a game that work on one console, it will work everywhere in the world. However if the PC game works on one PC, there still may be thousands of computer configuration, where the game will not run. Sad, but true.

Quoting mrakomo,

reply 6

I have never heard about this game. However the reason is the development of the PC games is very expensive. If you create a game that work on one console, it will work everywhere in the world. However if the PC game works on one PC, there still may be thousands of computer configuration, where the game will not run. Sad, but true.

Yet on consoles, publishers pay a hefty licensing fee. I am certain that the cost of PC QA is no more expensive, assuming good sales, than console licensing agreements.

to the OP : Aye, it would of been nice to play on the PC

its a good game, really enjoy playing it

best game in a long while i've played. maybe its just cause its similar to flashback/another world which i enojoyed playing alot when they came out.

There is simply more money to be made in the console market right now, for many reasons.

One is that few people enjoy the hobby of building and maintaining a decent gaming rig, if you buy a console, you are set. If you buy a PC, you need to take care of it and it can get expensive when you want to upgrade anything.

Then there is piracy, games on console are harder to pirate because all the hardware is proprietary and WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES play a burnt copy of a game; unless it is physically modded or the OS is wiped or some other drastic procedure that may render the consol completely worthless and removes some of the functionality.

Consoles are a larger market than PCs are, it is true that there are billions of computers out there, but many of them are not used for any type of serious gaming.

That being said, PC gaming is not dead, it is just innaccesible to a lot of people. It will be interesting to see what happens when even an integrated graphics chip will be able to put up a decent effort on par with a low end graphics card.

Look at the PS3, it was ~$600 when it first came out, but could play games at frame rates much faster than a $600 PC could.

There are good games on consoles, gears (while not the best fps ever) is a good game and at the time it was released the cover system was fairly innovative.

Consoles manage to play games that you need a high end PC to run effectively (a result of the games being coded to work with the consoles hardware configuration) and can do it without all the attitude PCs give out:

"Make sure you have the latest drivers for you video card, motherboard, sound card, processor, monitor, keyboard, mouse, optical drive, hard drive, monitor, and floppy drive prior to playing the game"

I don't think motherboard drivers matter half as much as they did before Vista. You just get onto Windows Update and install whats on there for video and sound and whatever else and you're usually fine.

So XP users still have that annoyance, but nobody else cares.

And my integrated graphics chip on my laptop plays games quite well. (ATI 3200) It's the Intel ones that are all screwy.

PC gaming is a lot cheaper than it used to be, but it's also a lot less rewarding than it used to be. I can't say I'm not sad to see it go, but I am also sad that even the consoles have stagnated (wrt the hardware) in this economy.

Quoting Savyg,

reply 10

I
And my integrated graphics chip on my laptop plays games quite well. (ATI 3200) It's the Intel ones that are all screwy.

That's a laptop though, they generally have lower resolutions than desktop monitors and tend to overheat during heavy load unless actively cooled from the outside.

PC gaming is expensive, let me put it in perspective, you buy an Xbox 360, it comes with a controller so you're all set there. You just need a TV to hook it up to and some place to sit and play. ~$299 for the console (assuming you have a tv)

The cheapest PCs are ~$300, but no way are they going to run games that a 360 can run. For a PC you need to buy a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, case, PSU, motherboard, CPU, graphics card, hard drive(s), and an optical drive at the least. That isn't cheap and a system will only run as fast as its slowest point, so if you skimp on one component the thing will chug.

PCs have one HUGE advantage though, and that is raw power. Any mid-to-high end computer will crush a PS3 or Xbox 360 if they are performing the same task and during gaming, a PC gives you the option to change game settings.

Consoles are accesible- you do not need to be tech savvy to get a brand new console up and running, but a new PC with a blank hard drive requires some finesse.

There is a place for both PC and Console gaming, I just hope one doesn't marginalize the other so much like what is happening now.

Quoting CaptainAanderson,

reply 11

Quoting Savyg, reply 10I

PC gaming is expensive, let me put it in perspective, you buy an Xbox 360, it comes with a controller so you're all set there. You just need a TV to hook it up to and some place to sit and play. ~$299 for the console (assuming you have a tv)

Coming from the minimalist perspective, you could have a TV a bad one maybe...and you could have a PC a bad one maybe...

To get the most out of that console you will need a decent HDTV, not required, but it sure looks nice. So $300 + $1000 for something thats not a POS. we can even put it a cheap HDTV for $500. You want something big to sit on your couch right?

You can game quite well for $800 + $150 monitor, on PC, probably not Crysis on the highest settings, but it will handle anything ported from consoles and then some, save some absolute crap port like Saints Row 2, only one I've heard of.

Now you have to consider the $20 extra fee that goes to MS and Sony to make up in hardware costs, it wouldn' t be uncommon for a gamer to have 10 games in a year, theres an extra $100-$200 in software fees you paid (PC games are usually $40, sometimes $50 for AAA) Add in Xbox live fees to take advantage of the multiplayer that all other gamers are doing, theres another $50. Sounds like the PC gamer could have put them costs to getting a new video card, which $200 GPU's right now play anything on max assuming your not CPU bottlenecked.

So, no PC gaming is not much more expensive than consoles, but it is more complex, and is not for everyone, if you want ease of use and just jump in and game, consoles might be better for that person.

But I say, hey you need a computer in life anyway(unless you're amish), why not go big?

But you have a valid point if you want to have 1-2 single player games on xbox at sub 480 resolution, then yes xbox is a pretty damn cheap route to go. But for those who want the most out of gaming...ya I'm on the PC, until it dies...when consoles get mice, keyboards, and windows I suppose....

The difference between the two is that televisions aren't soley for consoles - I can own a TV without owning a Console, and thus isn't included in the cost. High end Video Cards, however, don't have much use outside of a Gaming PC. Using that thinking, your computer desk, internet access, computer chair, etc. are taken into consideration into the cost of PC Gaming, as is your couch and TV Unit for the consoles.

Console gaming is cheaper in the initial set-up costs, however - at least in Australia - we're paying AU$120.00 for new release games, while a PC game will set you back AU$100.00 at most.

If anyone is going to argue that you don't need a television for console gaming, since, well, you should already own one, doesn't the same hold for PC gaming?

I would argue that the costs of "upgrading" to PC gaming or console game are roughly similar. Here's why:

Starting from nothing:

PC: $600-1200 (includes all hardware and a monitor)
Console: $300 console, $400-1500 in home theater equipment (varies greatly, depending on desired experience)

Starting from a well-equipped, non-gamer household:

PC: Decent PC already owned, must buy better video card ($150-300) and possibly more memory (>$100)
Console: Home theater system already owned, must buy console ($300)

Keep in mind that the PCs are a better value in terms of gaming software because games run $10 cheaper, and there are no costs to play online (in the case of the 360, a Live Gold subscription; MMOs on PCs and consoles involve their own fees). PC gaming does not require a $2500 machine, and it is quite affordable. Besides, why own a console for gaming alone when you can upgrade your PC for gaming and enjoy the benefits of a faster machine for non-gaming tasks?

Or if you want both, you can save yourself some cash and hook them both up to a single monitor or TV.

If you want a PC to run a game like gears of war and have it look as good as it does on a 360, you will need to spend much more than you would for a 360 and the game. Whether or not you play it on an HDTV doesn't matter since HD only affects the resolution (and colors depending on brand and such...) and to game at 1900x1200 fluidly on a PC, you will need at least a gtx 260, thats about $200, two-thirds the cost of a 360 alone.

Not to mention in two years when better games come out, you will need to upgrade again, probably the processor this time, and new processors sometimes aren't supported by the mobo and PSU concerns and... you get my point.

And yes, for this investment you get a machine with much more functionality and much more horsepower. I am a member of the minority that loves to build and maintain my rig and i make sure that it will run anything i want at whatever settings i want, but not everybody is like that. So they get consoles and enjoy plug'n play, something very elusive to PC gamers.

They both have their advantages, but if you have the money, PCs are the way to go.

I'm starting to lose faith in the PC platform personally. Some fantastic games come out for it still, but less and less stuff I'm actually interested in.

Maybe DX11 will rejuvenate PC gaming to some degree, but honestly I don't believe it anymore.

DX11 won't rejuvenate anything. DX9 is the only DX that matters, because most Windows computers run XP. Fragmenting DX10 and DX11 off for different Windows versions is another way Ballmer has been idiodically driving PC gaming to destruction.

When I think back to games I really liked, most of them did not even use Direct X. From the perspective of game design DX11 does nothing new. If some feature of DX11 (like higher-precision color or better font rendering) makes the difference between a game being fun or not, then that was a pretty crappy game.

Talk down on DirectX all you want, but without it the gaming world wouldn't be where it is today. Just as Windows brought the PC into our homes. Now most of you will probably respond "yeah and it sucks, wish it wouldn't exist" but then we'd still be freeing up our RAM manually and use a command line interface.

PC gaming isn't dead, the studios making games make us think that so that we all buy a console and console games, on which they make more money. It's the one thing they all care about.

Quoting SaberCherry,

reply 18

DX11 won't rejuvenate anything. DX9 is the only DX that matters, because most Windows computers run XP. Fragmenting DX10 and DX11 off for different Windows versions is another way Ballmer has been idiodically driving PC gaming to destruction.

When I think back to games I really liked, most of them did not even use Direct X. From the perspective of game design DX11 does nothing new. If some feature of DX11 (like higher-precision color or better font rendering) makes the difference between a game being fun or not, then that was a pretty crappy game.

It doesn't have to make the game more fun to rejuvenate PC gaming. It just has to give people a reason to buy PC games instead of Xbox 360/PS3 games. A reason which doesn't exist with DX9.

Breaking compatibility was a hard sell for users and developers, which obviously didn't have immediate benefits but is definately going to start paying off now that they don't have to. What do you need for DX11? A DX10 card and a DX10 OS. About 30% of Steam users are DX10 capable as of July, and once 7 is out that will definately grow.

I've never seen a game that I thought was more or less fun because of prettier graphics, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm simply pointing out that the reason people bought PC games was that PC games were noticably better, and that hasn't been true at all with the DX9 generation of consoles.

Wait, is this really about how evil it is to move away from PC gaming when it comes to RETRO PLATFORM GAMES? Oh dear.

Turns out more and more companies are focusing on console platforms. This is news, it's not a terrible curse to damn evil directors to hell. It shouldn't even be surprising.

The argument that if you start developing games for platform abc means you can never choose to focus on xyz more profitable platform is childish. Aside from niche stuff like GalCiv, King of Dragon Pass, and other older games, I haven't played a PC game in ages. Perhaps, since I started playing PC games at 4, it's horrible of me to do most of my gaming on 360? The only PC games I'm even looking forward to is OFP and Elemental. This isn't the result of some conspiracy of plotting corporate CEOs - it's just life. And piracy, but that's obvious.

I agree with everything except piracy. It certainly is a factor but also a very very easy scapegoat for developers to drop PC support. Just blame it on the bad guys and save face. Many studios just prefer to develope for a certain console because it is easier (in the long run, once you got a console down you're set) and has higher profit margines.

It's pretty easy to say that when you're not the one making million-dollar decisions between developing for a platform riddled with piracy (whether or not, and to what degree, this really reduces profit is another question) and one without. I agree that developing for the 360 is probably easier, but this is probably not the case for the PS3 (and I've heard many cross-platform titles run into problems porting to the PS3). The solid frameworks (fixed hardware, network infrastructure, etc) also probably contribute to a 'less risky' evaluation, especially for the kind of action/teen games consoles are known for.

I don't really see the slow move away from PC having any serious negative effect on gaming quality, so who cares? My PC isn't my football team. It doesn't inspire loyalty or demand allegiance. If I didn't own a 360, I'd hardly get upset about a game like Shadow Complex when there are so many actual full-price games that come out late or never on PC.

Pnakotus: Agreed! I have no console, but I buy more games than I am able to play. And they all are good games (write "collector edition" on the box and I must buy it ).

I'm not saying piracy is not to blaim, but it would be more honest to say "hey, consoles have less piracy plus we also get more money" instead of the usual "boo-hoo piracy is forcing us to make console games only". I however expect the whole TV/games/mediacentre experience to end up in one system standing in the living room. Consoles already go quite a bit down that road, and I assume that in about 15 years if you want to play a game you have to do it on your 'home entertainment system', while PCs will remain just for office and internet work. Fast forward even more and I think not a PC will have a cpu but your house will, and it will control everything from room temperature, to the music you play in the bathroom, to the kids watching a movie in the living room, to the cost winner doing some work on the 'workstation' (which will only be a thin client by then). Think Star Trek, but a bit less harmonic.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.