PC vs Console (was Dragon Age: Origins)

[DeadPoolX]

Split this from the original Dragon Age: Origins topic.

I haven't tried DA yet (we only have one copy and Maia's playing it), but I really like the fact it was designed for the PC first. In fact, it wasn't even originally supposed to be on the consoles. I imagine EA had a hand in that change.

It's nice that the PC got considered first for a change. It seems most games are developed for consoles and then the PC gets it as an afterthought. The PC versions usually have extra content added in, so that's a bonus.

The PC version of DA also has the toolset. Neither console has that available. I haven't explored it in much depth yet (I'm too busy killing anything that moves in TF2), but I plan to use it.

If I sound smug, well... sorry, but I'm tired of the consoles getting considered first. Mass Effect suffered from numerous bugs and play issues on the PC, whereas the XBox 360 copy didn't. It was obviously a lousy port, but the fact remains that less effort went into it than it did on the Xbox 360.

[Tawmis]

Well there's a HUGE benefit to doing it for consoles first...

#1: No customization. Every X360 is the same. Some don't have this or that video card, this or that sound card, this or that type of memory, this or that type of hard drive, this or that type of OS (with who knows which service pack). The number of variations that have to be considered for PC is ridiculous.

#2: Just about everyone now has a console in their home (and yes a PC). But when you consider your market probably has a console AND a PC - then you refer to my #1 point, and the choice which one you're going to design for first is easy.

#3: Because of the #1 point; designing for a console first allows you to get your game out there with minimal trouble shooting and variations to worry about. Once you reap the rewards of your game's release on the console, you can then spend that money importing it over to PC if it does well, and spend the time that's going to be needed following up all the NUMEROUS issues that are going to develop because of all the different versions of PC possibilities.

I think it's just easier designing for console. If you design for the PC first and because of all the variations of the PC, get a bad name for the game as being "buggy" (especially with a new OS on the market now, like Windows 7...) - then your sales will also probably be damaged for console release if it's after the PC release has damaged the name of the game.

[DeadPoolX]

Maybe, but many console-to-PC ports are buggy in of themselves. PC gaming makes more sense overall (why buy TWO or more machines to play games when one could do it all?), gaming companies fail to take that into account. In fact, I know a lot of people who either don't own a console or hate playing games on it.

And there is customization. Most gaming companies develop their games for numerous consoles at once. So designing a game for the Xbox 360 is different from the PS3 and very different from the Nintendo Wii. Some of these games also make it to hand held devices, like the DS and PSP.

I realize they usually make different versions for each console, but that in of itself is extra customization. If a company makes exclusive titles for a console then that's easier, but that rarely occurs. Even if that's the original intent, that doesn't last for long.

Plus I hate the save game functions in consoles. They have the technology to allow saves ANYWHERE just like in the PC. Do they take advantage of it? No, they still rely on the old -- and now lazy -- convention of save points.

[Collector]

In fact, I know a lot of people who either don't own a console or hate playing games on it.

Indeed. Me too. We shouldn't make assumptions based on anecdotal evidence. There may be some statistics out there about how common that console ownership is, but I would venture that they have a long way to go to reach the ubiquitous level of PCs. On top of that, how many have all the different consoles? Even most that have only one console probably have at least one PC. If the game is not ported to all consoles then they have lost market share. If developed for PC it is available for the most customers, even if some choose to wait for a port to their console of choice.

While Tawm is right about the increased chances of bugs because of the diversity of hardware of PCs, the reputation of a game for the other platforms won't matter if different ports of games are released at the same time. Then it would not matter which the code was developed for first. In fact, it is probably quicker, easier and less expensive to port from the PC than to the PC.

[Tawmis]

PC gaming makes more sense overall (why buy TWO or more machines to play games when one could do it all?), gaming companies fail to take that into account.

You lost me? Two machines? Do you mean like a console and a PC?
A lot of people, I imagine, stick with one or the other. Almost ALL of my games I buy now are for console; for the sheer reason of not having to deal with the headache of whether or not my sound card works, or causes it to freeze, or if I have to change an IRQ or something abstract, or update my sound drivers (and that's just sound card issues; we could go into OS issues; video card issues; even DIRECTX issues with most new games). So for me, CONSOLE is simply a lot less trouble to deal with. It works. No matter what. No need to update drivers or worry about the OS. The only games I buy on PC now are games that simply don't come out for console systems (ie, Drakensang, for example). And if I can, I will always buy for X360. (Mostly because I don't have a PS3, but back when it was PS2 or Xbox, it was always Xbox).

And there is customization. Most gaming companies develop their games for numerous consoles at once. So designing a game for the Xbox 360 is different from the PS3 and very different from the Nintendo Wii. Some of these games also make it to hand held devices, like the DS and PSP.

Yeah, but they usually have different teams for each one.

Plus I hate the save game functions in consoles. They have the technology to allow saves ANYWHERE just like in the PC. Do they take advantage of it? No, they still rely on the old -- and now lazy -- convention of save points.

[/quote]

Not all games are like that. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, (heh, listing all the good games) - have it where you can save anywhere.

In fact, I know a lot of people who either don't own a console or hate playing games on it.

Indeed. Me too. We shouldn't make assumptions based on anecdotal evidence. There may be some statistics out there about how common that console ownership is, but I would venture that they have a long way to go to reach the ubiquitous level of PCs.

I don't know about that, anymore. Between the X360 (which really took off with XBOX Live), the PS2 (which was a hugely successful console back in the day), and the Wii (which was a huge, huge success for families and kids) - I'd wager that most homes (not all, but a huge amount of the homes out there - have at least ONE of these consoles).

On top of that, how many have all the different consoles? Even most that have only one console probably have at least one PC. If the game is not ported to all consoles then they have lost market share. If developed for PC it is available for the most customers, even if some choose to wait for a port to their console of choice.

Not games though. Not today's games. Today's games require some serious HIGH END graphic needs. I agree that there's PCs in just about every house; but it's only the true hard core gamers (who aren't strictly console gamers), who have the PC system requirements to run modern games like DRAGON AGE or MODERN WAREFARE 2... So while a lot of people have PCs - I don't think that have PCs that have the system requirements needed for a lot of games released today.

[DeadPoolX]

You lost me? Two machines? Do you mean like a console and a PC?
A lot of people, I imagine, stick with one or the other. Almost ALL of my games I buy now are for console; for the sheer reason of not having to deal with the headache of whether or not my sound card works, or causes it to freeze, or if I have to change an IRQ or something abstract, or update my sound drivers (and that's just sound card issues; we could go into OS issues; video card issues; even DIRECTX issues with most new games). So for me, CONSOLE is simply a lot less trouble to deal with. It works. No matter what. No need to update drivers or worry about the OS. The only games I buy on PC now are games that simply don't come out for console systems (ie, Drakensang, for example). And if I can, I will always buy for X360. (Mostly because I don't have a PS3, but back when it was PS2 or Xbox, it was always Xbox).

Yeah, I mean like both a PC and a console.

I realize that playing games on a console is generally easier. As you said, there's no need to update drivers or configure hardware. However, hardware has become more standardized than it used to be.

For instance, there's only NVIDA and ATI when it comes to video cards and there are different tiers of hardware. Most of the time there are several different versions of a particular video card. These different versions are made to accommodate different consumers. Not everyone feels they need the absolute BEST OF THE BEST video card. More often than not, a video card like that isn't even needed.

I have a five year-old machine. I believe I posted some of its specs in some other thread, but it has a single-core 3.6 GHz processor w/ hyper threading (which emulates a dual-core CPU), 2 GB of RAM, 512 MB ATI Radeon 3870, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS and 250 GB of hard drive space.

The only area in which my machine is somewhat lacking is the HD and that's easily replaceable. Even so, I've never managed to fill it up.

My point is that even though my computer is 5 years-old (which is considered quite old for a PC) it can run nearly ANY game flawlessly. And I mean games released this year, too.

Yeah, but they usually have different teams for each one.

And on the PC they only need one team, just as each console gets its own team. I fail to see any difference.

Not all games are like that. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, (heh, listing all the good games) - have it where you can save anywhere.

Okay, but the majority of console games still use save points. That's a real issue with me. I can see the need for it in older games, but nowadays there's no excuse. Consoles have hard drives so the only explanation is lazy programming.

I realize that's not the fault of the console itself. However, since most console games are made that way, that's something to heavily consider when purchasing one.

I don't know about that, anymore. Between the X360 (which really took off with XBOX Live), the PS2 (which was a hugely successful console back in the day), and the Wii (which was a huge, huge success for families and kids) - I'd wager that most homes (not all, but a huge amount of the homes out there - have at least ONE of these consoles).

I agree that many homes (but not all) probably have at least one console. Maia and I have a Wii. But when we compare the selection and quality of games (PC vs Wii), there's simply no contest: the PC wins nearly every time.

I know you'll say there's a wider selection of games for the XBox 360 and PS3 and that their games are higher quality. Maybe, maybe not.

But consoles aren't necessary. Computers are needed for everyday life. So everyone has a PC, but not everyone has a console. Does that mean every PC user is a gamer? Of course not. But there are more people with PCs so marketing to the PC demographic makes sense as it encompasses more people.

The original reason for consoles (going back to the NES) was that computers of the time were limited in what they could do. Sure, you could play King's Quest on those old PCs, but what about more action-oriented games? Back then those types of games were horrendous. So the NES hit a chord with gamers who were looking for something other than Adventure games (or even Flight Simulators).

That isn't the case today as many consoles have the same games the PC does. That's the primary reason Maia and I got a Wii. We figured that having a PS3 or XBox 360 would simply be redundant.

Not games though. Not today's games. Today's games require some serious HIGH END graphic needs. I agree that there's PCs in just about every house; but it's only the true hard core gamers (who aren't strictly console gamers), who have the PC system requirements to run modern games like DRAGON AGE or MODERN WAREFARE 2... So while a lot of people have PCs - I don't think that have PCs that have the system requirements needed for a lot of games released today.

Okay, but which demographic plays Dragon Age or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare? Gamers who invest in their PC enough so that they can play those titles. So it isn't an issue.

The PC has a wider selection of games for each demographic, plus the games themselves are less expensive to purchase. In addition, there are genres for the PC that aren't available on consoles.

When was the last time you saw Book Worm on a console? You might think that game is somewhat stupid, but PopCap Games has sold hundreds of copies of Book Worm, in addition to many other Casual games.

The MMORPG is another genre you won't see on any console. How many people play World of Warcraft or Guild Wars on the XBox 360 or PS3? As far as I know, none of them do.

The MMORPG genre is amazingly popular with both men and women. More people have purchased WoW (and continue to pay the subscription fee) than nearly any other game. It's even more popular than Guild Wars, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me since GW lacks a subscription fee.

And of course, most Adventure games (those few that do come out nowadays) are for the PC. Sure, some of them have been released for the consoles, but the majority are PC-only.

[Tawmis]

Yeah, but they usually have different teams for each one.

And on the PC they only need one team, just as each console gets its own team. I fail to see any difference.

Point was - less worries and configuration nightmares with consoles vs PC.

Okay, but the majority of console games still use save points. That's a real issue with me. I can see the need for it in older games, but nowadays there's no excuse. Consoles have hard drives so the only explanation is lazy programming.

Actually I think some "Save Points" are intended to be in the game. It's an annoyance, to be sure, when in say - MARVEL ULTIMATE ALLIANCE, you are fighting your way through - and get a save point - go on for another 30 min - have a boss fight, and lose. Now you have to do it all over. But I think some game designers do it - not so much out of being lazy - but making sure players don't save every 2 minutes, and just keep hitting restore, just because they don't like where the fight's going - even before it's over.

I agree that many homes (but not all) probably have at least one console. Maia and I have a Wii. But when we compare the selection and quality of games (PC vs Wii), there's simply no contest: the PC wins nearly every time.

That's because...

I know you'll say there's a wider selection of games for the XBox 360 and PS3 and that their games are higher quality. Maybe, maybe not.

Except no "Maybe not."

But consoles aren't necessary. Computers are needed for everyday life. So everyone has a PC, but not everyone has a console. Does that mean every PC user is a gamer? Of course not. But there are more people with PCs so marketing to the PC demographic makes sense as it encompasses more people.

A long time ago, people said computers weren't necessary either. Hard to believe, but it's true. Before the internet, having a computer was pretty much for simple tasks. The internet made computers a required things of most homes, because of email, being able to VPN into work, etc etc. They became extremely useful.

Already consoles are headed the same way; you can already access (in an upcoming update for X360) - the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm ... You say "Oh wow! Big deal!" But really - it's just the beginning.

The PC has a wider selection of games for each demographic, plus the games themselves are less expensive to purchase. In addition, there are genres for the PC that aren't available on consoles.

The MMORPG is another genre you won't see on any console. How many people play World of Warcraft or Guild Wars on the XBox 360 or PS3? As far as I know, none of them do.

The MMORPG genre is amazingly popular with both men and women. More people have purchased WoW (and continue to pay the subscription fee) than nearly any other game. It's even more popular than Guild Wars, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me since GW lacks a subscription fee.

[/quote]

Funny you should mention MMO's and consoles. Guess what's coming to consoles? MMOs. There was a MARVEL MMO planned by SONY (makers of EverQuest) - but it fell through - but is STILL in the works. The folks who made CITY OF HEROS (Cryptic Studios) now have it. And there's supposedly going to be a CONSOLE and PC version of the Marvel MMO.

[DeadPoolX]

Actually I think some "Save Points" are intended to be in the game. It's an annoyance, to be sure, when in say - MARVEL ULTIMATE ALLIANCE, you are fighting your way through - and get a save point - go on for another 30 min - have a boss fight, and lose. Now you have to do it all over. But I think some game designers do it - not so much out of being lazy - but making sure players don't save every 2 minutes, and just keep hitting restore, just because they don't like where the fight's going - even before it's over.

I say it's laziness. If the only way developers feel they can add to the tension and overall challenge is to gimp the player, then something is very wrong.

So what if players save every two minutes? If players want to do that, that's their choice. All save points do is discourage playing the game.

Think about it: I'll have to make sure I have tons of time set aside to play (life doesn't wait for gaming) and then somehow not get ticked off if I have to do the same thing over and over.

It seems to me that using save points is a poor development decision. It's certainly easier for the developer to do, but in the process, they're simply pissing off a lot of players and ensuring some don't even bother with the game at all.

A long time ago, people said computers weren't necessary either. Hard to believe, but it's true. Before the internet, having a computer was pretty much for simple tasks. The internet made computers a required things of most homes, because of email, being able to VPN into work, etc etc. They became extremely useful.

Already consoles are headed the same way; you can already access (in an upcoming update for X360) - the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm ... You say "Oh wow! Big deal!" But really - it's just the beginning.

I know. I've gone to those websites before on the Wii.

Using the Internet on a console is very awkward and unwieldy. It's far easier to use a mouse and keyboard setup, especially when it comes to typing.

There also are many applications that consoles can't run. Are you really going to type up a research paper on a console or write up email? I doubt it. Doing so would be a nightmare.

What about Photoshop? Good luck with that. Using an analog stick and a D-Pad would be nothing more than an extreme lesson in frustration.

Maybe consoles will be able to do some of these tasks in the future. But right now, consoles are primarily designed for gaming (with anything else as an after thought). The PC is simply more versatile.

And here's something else to think about... as consoles become more and more like PCs, they'll begin to suffer the same problems. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point, you'll have the ability to change the hardware yourself. That's already happening since you can replace hard drives. It won't be long before other components follow.

[Collector]

A long time ago, people said computers weren't necessary either. Hard to believe, but it's true. Before the internet, having a computer was pretty much for simple tasks. The internet made computers a required things of most homes, because of email, being able to VPN into work, etc etc. They became extremely useful.

Already consoles are headed the same way; you can already access (in an upcoming update for X360) - the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm ... You say "Oh wow! Big deal!" But really - it's just the beginning.

Try to get a decent job anymore without a PC. You no longer can simply mail your resume to a potential employer nor can just walk in to apply. Yes, you might be able to do some job searching on non-PC net enabled devices, but try writing that resume on them. If you start to add word processors to a console it no longer is just a console, but some sort of hybrid. The more PC features that you add, the more deviations in configurations you will have and there goes the single advantage that consoles have over PCs for developers. Even if you tightly control hardware and configurations, like Apple does, you still get the deviations. Of course, you can always do like most Mac users I know do when things go wrong -- wipe the hard drive and start over.

The lines between the different devices may indeed become blurred, but as I said, it is no longer just a console.