You release first on console and then on pc, don't expect huge numbers with the latter for two reasons:
people may have bought it on console already and pc players think it's a console game made for the dumb masses.
Just speculation. 

Aside from the release of dev tools and the ability to mod and tweak?

That's exactly the point, aside from SDK-esque stuff there is nothing that can be added on PC that can't be done with consoles.

Patches, new content, mods, etc can all be easily distributed via XBox Live, et al, just as simply as for PC games in the past (look at the new level content for CoD4 on XBox).

I do think it'd be a shame if bedroom modding became a thing of the past, but I don't think it's a major concern as far as the publishers/developers accountants are concerned. 

And the advantage is that when you distribute new content on consoles, you can more easily stick a pricetag on it what with micro-payments and all, yay!

(Yeah I'm still pissed we never got the extra CoD4 maps.) 

but I guess there is a mouse for ps3?

What about higher refresh rates not possible with teevees? 

it's useless to try to think porting a console game to pc and expecting some improvement, when pc is a different platform.

If you design for console, then of course it works better on console.

Has Civilization been ported to consoles and enjoyed any success for example? (Haven't played civ4.) 

"Next-gen" games now simply cost too much to make.

The culture of PC piracy, and the ability (as Bal said) to easily nickel-and-dime content on a console are both contributing towards the fairly obvious fate that PC gaming has seen coming for a long time now. 

yeah, fuck ps2 

I think that hardware on the PC really is the problem. Piracy, yes, is a big problem but I sort of had a moment of clarity this weekend on why PC gaming is dying when I was watching some old demoscene videos.

Back in the day, part of the success of your game wasn't just that you had the best graphics, but rather that your coders were talented enough to come up with clever ways to do neat things on existing hardware.

Remedy & Starbreeze are both full of former demoscene guys (and both are pretty successful companies) and in terms of graphical prowess I'd say they're arguably two of the best at getting good looking games running on limited hardware. Riddick was out the door a few months before Doom 3 and looking sexy as hell on the Xbox(!)

Another great example of this is the game Zero Tolerance for Genesis/Megadrive. I think people thought it was largely impossible to do an FPS on the Genesis but these guys did it.

Also, I'm sure if you asked John Carmack about why Doom and Quake were so successful, he'd tell you a large part of it was getting (assembly genius) Michael Abrash onboard at id to crunch a lot of the code down and optimize the shit out of it. I'm sure a lot of people probably did upgrade their computers to play Quake, but the point is that there was a great deal of effort to squeeze as much as possible out of existing hardware. I know that this just doesn't happen anymore for a number of reasons.

I'm sure Crysis for example was optimized to at least some degree but when you have a budget, a deadline, and the safety net of having partners in the hardware industry who want to use your product to sell the latest and greatest products, you don't have as much incentive to really get your game running well and looking good on lower end hardware.

It could be too that a lot of the optimization wizards are applying their skills to consoles where it's a lot easier to optimize since you know your end user's environment is always going to be the same.

Regardless of all that I don't think I'm as funereal about the state of PC gaming because PCs will continue to be a major part of 21st century life and people will always want to game on them. The developers who have the best gimmicks and hooks (like Blizzard and Valve) will continue to be the ones who snare the largest share of those people. And sometimes, just sometimes, all you have to do is make a great game (like the Witcher) and success will follow :) 

Blitz they do optimise games. But you just cant get modern looks on 4-years old hardware. Games have to scale to the stone-age tech, and some do. UT3 scales pretty well - you can play it on 2,5 year old cards (like gf 7800) or on modern low end (8600). Do I need to remind you its` PC version sales? - like 130k in USA :( Also that was the game that got released on PC prior to the console release. Didnt help either.

You guys forgot that Valve is not a PC dev anymore - its gone multiplatform too. Dont thik they`ll drop PC support anytime soon, but its a sign of time. PC alone doesnt cut it. And as soon as PC games sales wont even justyfy spending money on porting/supporting a PC version of a game - that will be it. Free casual MMOs with microtransactions...

and whats wrong with consoles... cant customize (some games dont even let you rebind keys), cant mod, controller that sucks for the fast and presize aiming/pointing? (lets hope wii changes it, maybe you can even do an RTS with wii mote controlls) some say that sitting 2 meters from a telly is less immersive than nose-to-monitor
Another thing I really dont like (and it gets overlooked) is the segregation - 4 active consoles (not counting handhelds), each having good exclusive games ;/ ffs

Indie/small games are coming to consoles btw - MS makes XNA more open, Sony will be(or already?) open to small devs as well . 

What you actually want to do is convince publishers that it's cheaper to license user generated content (check it, buzz words) than to pay professional developers to create it so that they allow network integration with PCs, then people could download a devkit to create content and stream it to their console.

Most (if not all) of the network hardware is already in these consoles, it'd just require software at either end (you'd need games that support it ofc).

Assuming the PC content files weren't to heavily restricted you could even have online distribution/'communities' (fairly probable, how else would publishers be able to locate and fleece users?).

And you could do all this without any risk of piracy since people would still have to buy a copy of the game in order to develop/play content. 

XNA 

you have to have both a pc and a console... I guess actually all people that have a console actually do have a pc as well...

It's really weird. Why couldn't you make games for those pc:s that people have anyway for the internet and office work, with integrated graphics and sound. Never mind if they're two or three years old, you can still do a lot with them. 

I wanna play fps's with my nose touching the screen and a mouse and keyboard! I prefer this to playing from my armchair on my xbox 360 and 32" 720p....

I dont really know why, I just feel more in control.... 

I used to feel that way. Now I want to play on my couch looking at a 55" HDTV screen. The control issue is a non-issue - modern games are designed with the controller in mind so it's perfectly fine for playing shooter games. The mouse took some getting used to at first when I turned it on for the first time in Quake. The controller does as well.

Sure, you can't do flick 180 turns or pixel perfect aiming but those things aren't necessary in games that are designed for the console. Also, nobody else can do them either so it's a level playing field. 

yeah, since the controls are much worse, we make the game easier, and thus, problem is solved.

Eh?

How about making the game about pushing just one button in rhythm. That way you can play it lying on the sofa with one eye open. 

I played Gears of War (1) on my xbox, heh - Quake4 (360), Doom3 (xbox), COD4 (yippee - split screen deathmatch!), Halo/2/3 (also yippee!), er Bioshock, Orange Box...

I do like the control system in Gears particularly...

But playing Crysis and STALKER, UT3, HL2DM etc on my PC - for starters I love the picture I get on a 15" cr8 @ 1280x1024, and secondly I came up playing Blood, Quake, Doom, Jedi Knight2, Duke3D, Quake2/3, AVP (what a hell of a game that was!!!!) etc etc etc on my beloved PC...

It's a hard call to make I suppose, from a user's perspective. I can get along with both. I believe that my PC has more potential for graphical prowess (when it comes to sheers specifications/eye candy) than either the 360 or the PS3 does.

I dunno - I just want to play cool games! I really hope Aliens: CM comes out on the PC. A lot of that is to do with having played AVP on a PC, and like you say - you can do flick 180 turns etc.

Also online deathmatch really wouldn't cut it for me on a control pad, I mean no flick 180 turns ?!?! No pixel perfect aiming ?!?!? It would be like having sex for hours but no orgasm.

I dunno tho - Halo, Gears - definately happy playing SP on a console... 

"yeah, since the controls are much worse, we make the game easier, and thus, problem is solved. "

Nah, it's not like that. You design for what the hardware is. PC shooters play like they do because of the mega accuracy of the mouse. Console shooters play differently - not necessarily easier, just differently.

"It would be like having sex for hours but no orgasm. "

That sounds pretty good to me. Where do I sign up? Orgasm means it's over, dude. :) 

and I love the accuracy and the movement. You can pull amazing moves every now and then. 

How about making the game about pushing just one button in rhythm. That way you can play it lying on the sofa with one eye open.

Guitar Hero?

But I disagree with the idea that you have less control with consoles, you can still flick shot, etc if you set the sensitivity right and use the analog stick as... well... analogue (remember the running/walking/sneaking tutorial in Mario 64?).

(In fact, there are various games that couldn't be done without analogue control. The dual stick controls in SKATE (yes, I know, a skating game, but Ico was about dragging some bint around) are actual genius.)

Also, if you're playing online/splitscreen everyone has the same control system so it's still a balanced playing field.

There's no need to make games easier just because a few PC gamers can't learn a new control method.

I have some other points about how PCs are used now and the increased polarisation of software resource requirements but I'm in a hurry so I'll post them later.

Basically, console gaming seems to be all the same fun without the mess, kinda like having... (you see where I'm going with this ;)


Also online deathmatch really wouldn't cut it for me on a control pad, I mean no flick 180 turns? No pixel perfect aiming?

That's just losing some of the precise control, it'd be more like having sex with you hands tied together... 'Hmm' 

increased resolution, more polygons, better color depth, more fps. Those are good things.

But improved controls with better accuracy, high update rate, they are somewhat totally irrelevant, they don't matter as long as it's the same for everyone.

What about ping times in multiplayer?

I think this is why I don't play any new games. 

or a lot of time to position the crosshair on an enemy, ping doesn't matter much at all, so these things are very multiplayer friendly too.

I think even the third dimension could be dropped. Hell, pacman and snake are great. Why even buy new consoles anymore? You can play with your 8 bit nintendo just as well.

In other words, your argument for wanting shitty controls is total bollocks. 

Seriously though - my experience of PC's and gaming in the past has always been a bit rocky, but with these new 8800/9800 graphics cards, core2duo's, DDR3 etc - it seems to me that the hastle has gone from getting a good PC platform for gaming.

And simply from looking at the trends in the price of hardware, unless some massive GPU factories blow up I dont see PC's suddenly becoming un-affordable again.

Its crazy really I think.

I mean how about this; If you were an avid gamer and could only choose either a PC or a console, which would you choose?

PC - You can do more with a PC in general - post on func_, create documents & media, surf the web easier than any other platform - you can still play games and there are a couple of PC only games. Also each game is a few moneys cheaper to buy.

Console - You can play games, play online etc, games are a tiny bit more expensive, but the console is a *little* cheaper than a PC.


I mean LORD! How many people do I know who have consoles just to play FIFA and nothing else (these guys should have consoles and not PC's - it would be a crime to give them PC's)

And say what you will - I am an fps fan. I will be playing fps's on PC's for years to come. I will also have consoles to play the fps's which come out on consoles and not PC's, but I would rather play them on a PC with a keyboard and mouse. I enjoyed Gears and everything, it was well set up for a console controller, but my experience of COD4 on the console was not so sweet (for me anyway) and I should have played it on the PC...

Also I would have rather played Bioshock on a PC, and I even bought Quake4 on the PC even though I had already completed it on the 360.

Each to his own I suppose.

An if you cleverdicks who are working in the industry feel like turning around and saying "well, MATEY, tuff' luck for you because there wont be PC Shooters any more soon because big allabaster companies which make sed shooters wont support your beloved format anymore because they can make more money making them for consoles, because occasionally sports fans get drunk and buy shooters (which they then play once, dont understand and leave on their shelves for eternity), or have relatives which cant think what else to buy them for christmas so our sales figures go through the roof and we'll all drive 6L v8 RV's and watch 50" televisions...."

well you get the idea :-(

(sob)

Im not talking about it ANYMORE!!! (screams)

(rolling around on the floor having a tantrum, breaking things - picks up 360, throws it into 32" LCD, breaks keyboard over knee, throws PC out of window, screams some more, then slumps in a corner, sobbing, staring at feet whilst playing with a razor, stroking it up and down his forearm...) 

increased resolution, more polygons, better color depth, more fps. Those are good things.

Not if they come at the (literal) expense of buying cutting edge hardware rather than a 200� console. (and tbh, have you seen the current level of graphics on consoles on a decent screen, and this is before developers have learned to maximise the hardware usage)

But improved controls with better accuracy, high update rate, they are somewhat totally irrelevant, they don't matter as long as it's the same for everyone.

Well, I tend to view a balanced playing field as a good thing, yes. The refresh rate on console controls is still very high and as for accuracy;

If it takes you three seconds to turn around or a lot of time to position the crosshair on an enemy, ping doesn't matter much at all, so these things are very multiplayer friendly too.

Try setting the sensitivity very high, that'll let you do fast spins if you push the stick full right/left, but you still have accurate aiming if you push the stick gently (it's called analogue control for a reason).

What about ping times in multiplayer?

What about ping times in multiplayer? They apply to both PC and console online gaming, so it's hardly an argument in favour of either, more a basic understanding of how the interwebiverse works. And given the speed of most gamers' internet connections, ping is generally an insignificant issue these days.

I think even the third dimension could be dropped. Hell, pacman and snake are great. Why even buy new consoles anymore? You can play with your 8 bit nintendo just as well.

Well, I like 3D, since; "increased resolution, more polygons, better color depth, more fps. Those are good things."

You buy a new console every 4 years or so, still cheaper than constant PC upgrades and at a lesser cost per year than the bill from my ISP and you get current level graphics and games that don't try to sell you hardware just to play them (got UT3 the other day, fun, but the number of hardware ads on boot scare me). How is that bad?


In other words, your argument for wanting shitty controls is total bollocks.

You said something I believe, possibly with needless profanity. As far as I can tell it was about not being able to learn to use new interfaces. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQw4ixYFWQI 

I've used analog joysticks every now and then for probably twenty years. And those pads some too.

I don't know anyone who would argue they are better for pointing in an FPS than a mouse.

So, I think everyone agrees that they are worse.

Arguing that it doesn't matter is maybe true for some percentage of people. But not most.

The ping example was one too. By the same analogy, if everyone had 300 ping, then ping wouldn't matter since the playing field would be level. No matter that it makes pulling off good moves much harder or impossible.

The "it's a level playing field" just doesn't make worse things as good as better things.

And them being somehow "new" (which they arent) does not relieve them of their inferiority.