alex98uk

Why...?

Consoles are more lucrative, easier to develop for. Maybe in some angry geek utopia, PC would always be served first, but here in the real world, it isn't

__________________
Winamp FLAC > Xonar D2 > Optical Zero DAC > Little Dot MKIII > Sony MDR XB700

British Overclockers Club

vdek

Because when they develop for consoles first they limit themselves to graphics tech from 3-4 years ago...

And then the ports end up crappy.

alex98uk

Yes, but so be it. The aim of a business is to make money for their shareholders, not be the world leader is software design. It may come as an externality, but it isn't the primary concern.

They are not going to design primarily for a PC when the ROI is risky and not particularly high...

Get with the real world

__________________
Winamp FLAC > Xonar D2 > Optical Zero DAC > Little Dot MKIII > Sony MDR XB700

British Overclockers Club

vdek

It's even worse when you consider this console generation is supposed to last 10 years...

Squeeker The Cat

looks the same as BF1942. ill install that and play again before i buy this crap

__________________

alex98uk

The graphics aren't as good as PC, but given a console costs a lot less to buy and maintain than a gaming PC, it's impressive. Also, the PS3 uses the equivalent of a 7800gtx, it shows you how well programmed and easy to implement consoles are.

But alas, you seem to have no relevant nor appropriate response to my original statement, instead deciding to focus on the systems weak points rather than it's actual strengths.

If PC was a better and more profitable system to develop for, we'd see plenty of PC exclusives, but the fact of the matter is that it is not.

__________________
Winamp FLAC > Xonar D2 > Optical Zero DAC > Little Dot MKIII > Sony MDR XB700

British Overclockers Club

OmegaNemesis28

Whether the PC is better or not and whether its more profitable is debatable. It is not a fact. Depending on who you're trying to cater to, the PC can be more profitable and better. (MMOs, The Sims, RTS, massive multiplayer games, ect.)

Fact of the matter is that P2P gaming isn't ideal for games like Battlefield. Hence the stupid 24 vs 24 player cap. Its stupid. But, thats because consoles are NOT better then PC at that kind of thing.

RTS games, much more profitable on the PC. Same goes for MMOs. They actually work, consoles - not so much.

__________________

ElMikeTheMike

I haven't seen this much QQ in a thread in a long time.

__________________

alex98uk

I agree, I was talking about Battlefield, not the market as a whole. MMO's and stuff are better and more profitable on PC's. Although, a console version of WoW wouldn't surprise me at all.

__________________
Winamp FLAC > Xonar D2 > Optical Zero DAC > Little Dot MKIII > Sony MDR XB700

British Overclockers Club

xJumper

No SMG's wont have any iron sights, DICE said this. No medics, regenerating health and unlimited ammo does effect gameplay. If your good and your using teamwork getting ammo/revive/health is easy but if your the COD4 style player that whats to go around and just shoot crap, no. Battlefield is turning into the next COD, Battlefield got it's fanbase because it moved away from 10x10 killbox games now it's doing what everybody else is doing and taking a :turd: on it's core PC fans which got them to where they are today.

__________________
Why dedicated servers are Important