Originally Posted by Laten
Not once did I say PC user, I used the term 'PC gamer' several times in my post. Clear distinction must be made as the majority of the PC's in use today aren't used for gaming and in some case not even configured to play games at all. Hence, talking about PC's as a whole is irrelevant - I'm talking more about PC gaming and its respective gamers.
I didn't say "PC user" either.. I said console gamers game on PC as well. This is were you start to get into arbitrary definitions of what is considered gaming. Last time I checked, the term "gaming" is holistic and includes those that play online games such as Farmville, Pogo Games, Yahoo Games etc. Unless you're trying to suggest that they're not gamers which is very elitist.
Furthermore, you have an incredible feat of trying to define what an acceptable gaming PC is. Is it one that can max out Crysis at 60Hz or is it one that can play Doom 95 - There isn't an objective standard.
You can cite shipments of dedicated GPUs but given the advent of general purpose graphics processing, there are far more uses for modern video cards other than just gaming such as encoding, rendering, home theater, folding to name a few uses.
Making a nod towards the "causal" Farmville playing type, the PCGA also noted that "The report also estimates the worldwide number of consumers gaming with discrete graphics solutions on their PCs (Desktop and Notebooks) to be 212.6 million for 2009 and expects this to grow to about 322 million by 2014."
It seems the trend towards mobile gaming platforms is also being seen reflected in the PC market, as PCGA research committee chairman Matt Ployhar increasingly sees sales of gaming notebooks and laptops coming to the fore. "One of the biggest trends I'm seeing in the 2009 Horizon's hardware report indicates a strong demand for more capable mobile based systems by PC Gamers."
This refutes two arguments in one. Not only does it include "Farmville"-type gamers as contributing to the sales and stigma of "PC gamer" but in the second paragraph it refutes the notion that you can define "PC gaming hardware" as being solely the purchase of dedicated items such as CPUs, GPUs, and more RAM.
Console gamers are PC gamers, and the irony is that the opposite isn't true; PC gamers aren't console gamers because there's only one Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii... Not an infinite variation. Consoles aren't something PC gamers just so happen to have unless there's a game they want to play which can't be found on PC.
Originally Posted by Laten
The point I was trying to highlight was more on how game developers who originally released successful franchises/games on PC moved on to consoles exclusively. You wouldn't call that a stab in the back, or at least a blatant show of neglect?
The other point was on how more and more games seem to have less effort put into development in porting the games to PC, whilst the console version do not have these imperfections.
A few random examples:
Dead Space 1; mouse movement is out of sync. It has never been patched and there is no way of actually fixing it. Playing the game is difficult to play with mouse, due to the out of sync mouse movements.
Saints Row 2 having extremely bad optimizations resulting with it putting excessive load on your hardware or having to reduce your settings (defeating the point of using a high end PC, when you could easily play other games that have looked much better).
Resident Evil 4; No mouse controls!(None what so ever) Low res textures. No uninstaller (you have to manually delete it bit by bit).
... I could name a few more games but I guess you get the point. I mean even games like Mortal Kombat Kollection which was meant to release 31st Augest on PC, Xbox live and PSN. The date came and went, with it releasing on Xbox live and PSN, but not PC - there wasn't even any word of how long it would be delayed... there still isn't. I mean this is just one example highlighting the bigger picture. I wouldn't call none of the cases above 'fair' for PC gamers.
You have some valid concerns.