Widescreen Gaming Forum

Sure, but you could never do the things that you could do on the PC on consoles. You obviously could never ever have pulled off Wolf3D or Doom on a console at the time of their release.

Wolfenstein 3D, sure you could.


DOOM, ok, maybe not, but that was basically the Crysis of its day. And if you go back as far as ten years, you're not going to find much that wouldn't be technically feasible on consoles.

Now days that is really the only redeaming quality for publishers/developers.

Ten years ago, that was enough.

Carmack is a different beast though. He was pioneering C in games, it took quite a long time for everyone else to catch up with him.

No, I don't think that's true. I'm looking through this list of open source games, and I have yet to see a single one that's mostly in assembly. ADVENTURE, for instance, was written in FORTRAN way back in 1976. Nethack, back in 1987? C. Duke Nukem 3D? C. The side-scrolling games from Apogee? Turbo Pascal. And if you read the manuals of Might and Magic II, which was made in 1988, it references Turbo C.

Why would the studios change over so quickly once the PS1/N64 were released? They still had all of their veteran assembly engeineers.

Because they *had* to. Even if making Super Mario 64 in assembly was practical, and I'm pretty sure it is not, you can't just take a veteran SNES assembly programmer and have him work in N64 assembly. It doesn't work like that - the architecture is completely different, and therefore, so is the machine language.

Cranky, just to interject. Doom was ported to the SNES by id. I can't remember how good it was, but it was done.

EDIT: it used a separate graphics chip in the cartridge called FX2.

It's never been a secret that console games sell better. If that was the reason, they would have been making multiplatform games from the start. It's really not like people suddenly realized that multiplatform games sell better. Or that they suddenly became possible.

It is that they suddenly became possible though, or at least "good enough" as I said before. Halo proved you could do a real FPS on a console and have it work well enough. GTA3 proved you could do open-world games. Morrowind and those PS2 Baldur's Gate games proved you could do Western RPGs. As you said consoles have always sold more games, have always been more mainstream... the reason why FPS and Western RPG games were mostly PC only was because no one figured out how to get them working "good enough" on a console. They figured that out now, and so now those genres are multiplatform.

Once they figure out MMOs for the consoles we'll lose that too.

Halo proved you could do a real FPS on a console and have it work well enough.

So did Goldeneye. Neither game resulted in PC losing the shooter genre to consoles - we still got five years worth of post-Halo shooters oriented to PC, such as MOHAA, Call of Duty, Max Payne 2, Doom 3, Far Cry, Half-Life 2, FEAR, and Prey.

GTA3 proved you could do open-world games.

GTA 1&2 were on consoles too. And I can't really say that this "genre" truly existed prior to GTA 3, so I don't see how one could list this as something the PC had that was lost to consoles once GTA3 proved it possible.

Morrowind and those PS2 Baldur's Gate games proved you could do Western RPGs.

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance isn't really an RPG - it's a Baldur's Gate game by name only. And it's not like Morrowind caused PC to loose RPGs to consoles either - we still got PC oriented RPGs for years after that too, like The Temple of Elemental Evil, Sacred, Gothic 3, and The Witcher.

the reason why FPS and Western RPG games were mostly PC only was because no one figured out how to get them working "good enough" on a console.

If that was the reason, then all FPS and RPGs following Goldeneye and Morrowind should have been console-oriented. But that's not what happened.

There's a bit of transition time you know cranky, it's not like the day after Halo everything changes. For one thing the Xbox wasn't as popular as the PS2 until the Xbox 360 blew out of the gate, and for another it just takes time for people to adjust.

When you think about it there really is no reason for a company to ignore platforms their game works on. Why make a PC only FPS that isn't an MMO? What would the motivation be? As much as I might personally wish for it I can understand why it makes no sense for developers and publishers.

It took more than ten years to go from "we proved FPS can work on console" to "screw PC gamers." That's an eternity in the gaming industry, not a transitional period. It didn't take long at all for a flood of half-assed FPS's to arrive on consoles in the wake of Halo, and that includes PS2. Goldeneye inspired some console shooters too, like Medal of Honor (the first one, not MOHAA) and Perfect Dark. And yet, PC devs kept making PC oriented shooters, even though there was more money to be made on consoles. So, why make a PC oriented shooter? Ask the developers of the games I mentioned. Clearly they had reasons.

Well Halo was 2001... give it 2 years and we're talking 2003. I guess there were still some high profile PC only FPS games in 2003 but I can't really recall specifics. FEAR was 2005.

Anyway it's a combination... I'm pretty sure I said that. Controls got good enough, piracy increased on PC, Xbox 360 was HD which consoles had been lacking forever, Xbox Live came into its own, etc. etc.. I can't tell you how many times I read "stopped PC gaming when I got my 360" and similar comments. And again, most importantly, WHY make a PC exclusive right now? There is no real reason to. To turn down money from other platforms you need a good reason.

I guess there were still some high profile PC only FPS games in 2003 but I can't really recall specifics.

Call of Duty, Max Payne 2, Postal 2, TRON 2.0, Unreal II, XIII. And I know some of these were ported to consoles, but PC was the primary intended platform for all of these games.

And again, most importantly, WHY make a PC exclusive right now? There is no real reason to. To turn down money from other platforms you need a good reason.

Again, why make a PC exclusive ten years ago? There have to have been reasons. My take is that the PC offers freedom, flexibility, and depth that isn't possible or even welcome on consoles. That's why PC was the platform of choice for some ten years ago, and it still holds true today.

Call of Duty I'll give, but Postal 2 is hardly a shining example of why a game should be multiplatform... it would have given the game more exposure, which would have increased the chances of it being banned.

As for the others... I saw console versions of Tron 2 and XIII before I saw PC versions, for better or worse. Unreal 2 I'll give as well, but that was almost universally hated for some reason, so they probably ported it in the vain hope of making some money back, then saw how much cash they could make off a game on consoles that did poorly on the PC. ;)

I'm pretty sure Postal 2 was moderately successful. For what it's worth, it *was* banned in New Zealand and Australia, effectively banned in Germany, and brought to court in Sweden. Unreal 2 seemed to be moderately successful as well - the PC version has a mean rating of 75% on Gamerankings, while the XBox version is only 64%.

And Tron 2.0 and XIII were definitely released on PCs first. Tron 2.0 didn't see consoles until a year after its PC release. The important thing, though, isn't whether or not console versions ever existed, but that development was first and foremost for the PC. After all, Deus Ex isn't any worse for the existence of a PS2 port, is it? Nor is Starcraft worse for the existence of an N64 port?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/10/27/actually-we-are-getting-bioshock-2-dlc/

(although will never be up to KB+M standards)

Fixed that for you. ;)

That and games on the PC have a major disadvantage for publishers: it's easier to mod a game on the PC. If the devs release some tools, that makes it easy, and the fan community then proceeds to go mad and make so many free mods that people could keep playing for the next ten years without needing to do more than download mods for one game. And even if the devs don't release mod tools, if a game gets popular enough, the community makes their own... in some cases falling back to the very software that the devs used to create the game if it's commercial (eg: Final Fantasy VII PC has a heck of a lot of mods to improve one thing or another... and it's taken a heck of a lot of effort to get there...)

Hence product longevity is public enemy #1 and being assaulted with extreme prejudice by the suits. Time and content limited, DIVX-style, disposable $60 games are wet dream #2--right after subscription model gaming.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/10/27/actually-we-are-getting-bioshock-2-dlc/

Good for those that have/play/like/want more of Bioshock 2. Still, my inner cynic read that and thought of the proverbial abusive spouse promising to never hit again. 2K: "We're so sorry, loyal PC fans. We promise not to screw around with Bioshock Infinite. Please buy it on day 1."

I think slogging through election material has put me in a mood.

I think slogging through election material has put me in a mood.

It would put anyone in a mood. Modern politics isn't about talking about what you will do, it's about shouting about how bad the other guy is.

Looks like it's supported once again!

http://www.bluesnews.com/s/115465/bioshock-2-pc-dlc-plans-revived

We are a company of gamers making awesome experiences for gamers - and given the conversations we've had over the past two weeks, we've decided to go back and finish the PC patch and Protector Trials. Currently, we are patching the final bugs in these two pieces of content and then will submit everything to certification. The cert process can take anywhere up to four weeks, but as we hit major milestones (passing cert or otherwise included) I'll tell you guys. We are projecting that the patch and the Protector Trials will be ready to cert in December and I'm happy to announce that they will be available free to the community.

When we stopped development on Minerva's Den, it was not in a workable state and needed significantly more dev time to complete. As of now, we are not certain how much longer it would take to complete the project to our standards, but we have reallocated resources to work on completing the project so PC gamers can have this experience in Rapture along with 360 and PS3 owners.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6286305.html

According to a post from 2K Games' senior manager of interactive marketing Elizabeth Tobey on the official BioShock 2 forums, the Protector Trials downloadable content is heading to certification at the end of the month, with a release date announcement to follow.

As for the Minerva's Den content, according to the post, that add-on "still has some work to be done on it" and will move to certification in March.

With each console generation, I wonder why publishers get more hostile toward the PC

More than a couple have explicitly blamed PC piracy for hurting their overall profits. And frankly, it's the only explanation I've heard that makes sense.

Yes this makes a lot of sense actually. In fact, whenever someone pirates a game you make, you should entirely stop support for those who did purchase the product because the actions of a company toward its customers should come from its non-customers, the people giving it no money right? Either way, they have the choice to make backwards decisions like this; although, no one company will ever know how many people pirated their games, only how many purchased it. From this, it can be derived that the sales were lackluster. That or 2K Games plans on ripping of its customers now and more in the future and is using BioShock 2 as a testbed for such actions.

The real problem here is that if there's a problem with the game, they will not support it anymore yet the company will still allow customers to purchase it probably with the impression it will still be supported as the game's only a few years old. While they'd probably never advertise "this is a legacy product which no longer is applicable to receive 2K Games technical support", there's a false pretense here which the company is going to probably realize probably comes from poor decisions on its part. And if it doesn't really affect the sales of their games, they'll keep doing it. It's much cheaper to sell games with no support on their end than to support the game and deal with disgruntled customers. In fact, the only incentive for a company to offer decent support is because people will purchase their games now and in the future.

[quote]

With each console generation, I wonder why publishers get more hostile toward the PC

More than a couple have explicitly blamed PC piracy for hurting their overall profits. And frankly, it's the only explanation I've heard that makes sense.

Yes this makes a lot of sense actually. In fact, whenever someone pirates a game you make, you should entirely stop support for those who did purchase the product because the actions of a company toward its customers should come from its non-customers, the people giving it no money right? Either way, they have the choice to make backwards decisions like this; although, no one company will ever know how many people pirated their games, only how many purchased it. From this, it can be derived that the sales were lackluster. That or 2K Games plans on ripping of its customers now and more in the future and is using BioShock 2 as a testbed for such actions.

The real problem here is that if there's a problem with the game, they will not support it anymore yet the company will still allow customers to purchase it probably with the impression it will still be supported as the game's only a few years old. While they'd probably never advertise "this is a legacy product which no longer is applicable to receive 2K Games technical support", there's a false pretense here which the company is going to probably realize probably comes from poor decisions on its part. And if it doesn't really affect the sales of their games, they'll keep doing it. It's much cheaper to sell games with no support on their end than to support the game and deal with disgruntled customers. In fact, the only incentive for a company to offer decent support is because people will purchase their games now and in the future.


I forget where I read the following stat...
But supposedly in the end ( even though the "initial" pc sales were dismal ) PC sales of Bioshock nearly equal console sales.
If true, someone really needs to shout as much from every corner of the universe. Cuz personally I do not know any console type who put down COD long enuff to buy Bioshock.