Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Muhammad Farrukh

nvidia PC To Beat Consoles In Game Sales By 2014

75 posts in this topic

Of course Nvidia (who makes PC graphics cards) would "predict" that PC game sales would rise. What a biased source.

Sure, PC graphics are better and more up to date, but not everyone wants to buy a new graphics card every year.

And for the most part, controller is superior to keyboards. Like seriously, keyboards were not meant for gaming. It was meant for writing text.

PC game sales are not "predicted" to rise. They are increasing, and there are facts to prove that. Of course Nvidia likes to embellish, but that doesn't remove the fact that PC gaming is becoming more popular. Digital download services like Steam and others are expanding very fast. For example Gamersgate increased their revenue 50% in 2011.

PC gaming is more expensive and more complicated with potential problems. I have no problem with people that like consoles for easy access to gaming. Diversity is good.

I play a lot of games with other controllers on PC. And mouse+keyboard are really awesome for some type of games too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'll stick to playing XBOX doing multiplayer with DualPlay glasses on, or playing games in 3D.

Personally I doubt PC games will ever beat Console games in sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong.

Here's one example:

http://www.tweaktown...ouse/index.html

Wow, you managed to find one game and it was designed by a PC developer. Congratulations.

Controller was designed exclusively for gaming; keyboard was not. You can't deny that fact.

Designed for != Better

If you want to keep pretending that controllers are better then go ahead but PC users are able to choose the control system they want and they overwhelmingly opt for KB&M in most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if the growth decreases once the next-gen consoles are released. I imagine it would decrease a little bit and slowly makes it way up as the next-gen console hardware ages.

Wrong.

Here's one example:

http://www.tweaktown...ouse/index.html

Controller was designed exclusively for gaming; keyboard was not. You can't deny that fact.

Are you implying that because a controller was designed for gaming, it's better than a keyboard (and mouse)? If so, then you're wrong. A mouse and keyboard is undeniably better than a controller for first-person shooters and real-time strategy games.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you implying that because a controller was designed for gaming, it's better than a keyboard (and mouse)? If so, then you're wrong. A mouse and keyboard is undeniably better than a controller for first-person shooters and real-time strategy games.

And any game that involves messaging, like first-person shooters or MMOs. Typing a message on a controller is so torturous that I've heard it's been approved for use by the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And any game that involves messaging, like first-person shooters or MMOs. Typing a message on a controller is so torturous that I've heard it's been approved for use by the CIA.

That's one thing that annoyed the heck out of me with my Xbox 360. After a short while, I resorted to replying on Xbox.com or with a voice recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this chart shows us is 2 things, current gen consoles are old, when it takes a cheaper midrange card to play the PC ports of the console games and have it look better then that plays into it. The 2nd thing is that we're seeing the casuals playing more on their new shinny mobile devices which tend to count as a PC. I think once we get the new consoles in late 2013 or so, with the updated graphics and new abilities to do more outside of gaming that the chart will once gain swing the other way.

As good as the PC is when it comes to performance and overall graphics quality it still tends to be a pain to just enjoy a game with little or no issue. I'd take the ability to just pop-in a disc and start playing a new game right away without much hassle and know that it'll run well without having to tweak settings etc over, in some cases, crazy long install times and often buggy releases that need at least a pair of patches before the game can run fine. Not everyone has the same setup so some don't have the issues as others do but we've all at least once ran into a PC game that's just a mess to try and play. Not to mention when you start talking drivers and the issues those can have.

Good point about tweaking your PC to get the best performance. It does take a little time but I like being able to tweak my PC, unfortunately you can't tweak consoles and you get what you get. Some PC games that come out can be a major pain in the rear with glitches and then waiting for patches.

It'll be interesting to see if the growth decreases once the next-gen consoles are released. I imagine it would decrease a little bit and slowly makes it way up as the next-gen console hardware ages.

Are you implying that because a controller was designed for gaming, it's better than a keyboard (and mouse)? If so, then you're wrong. A mouse and keyboard is undeniably better than a controller for first-person shooters and real-time strategy games.

Agreed with the keyboard and mouse for first-person shooters although I do use my Xbox 360 controller allot when playing PC games especially racing games for sure. I still struggle getting a quick scope reticle on target using the 360 controller but with the mouse I'm on it real quick.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal failure rate with consoles is far higher than with PC hardware. In fact the most recent console I've owned that didn't suffer some form of hardware failure was the Sega Dreamcast.

My personal failure rate with console was 0 before the 360.

My old NES still work.

My old SNES still work.

My old Playstation died but it died long after i bought my XBox.

My GC was still working when i sold it to buy a 360.

My XBox was still working when i sold it to buy a 360

My GBA is still working.

My XBox 360 ... well i got it repaired twice so i'm on my 3rd XBox 360 so far.

I RMAed 2 video card ever. A 8800gts and a 1800XL. But i change my video card every 2 years so ...

Historically i think PC are more prone to failure than consoles are. But this gen is different. The 360 is definately at the least as much prone to failure than a PC if not more. Everyone i know got their XBox 360 repaired at least once.

The driver problem on PC is definately not as bad as people say it is. I update my drivers usually once every 6 or 8 months. Basically if it's not broken don't fix it. If the game is working and it's smooth i'm not updating. The last time i had a serious drivers problem was a long time ago. Some people really live in the past when it comes to PC gaming. These days if you use Steam games are automatically updated silently by steam. Steam can even update AMD drivers. Did not test it since i own a nVidia card curently. Not sure but as far as i know nVidia drivers automatically and silently update games profile too. So basically you don't need to update the drivers themselves every month.

PC gaming has come a long way to make it easier for casual. Steam is a great platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not kidding. I paid over $1200 for my gaming PC back in 2007. Right now, I could build a decent one for $800. It's a mixture of better prices and better performance. It allows you to settle for less but still have better performance than a year ago. Everything from monitors to CPUs to video cards are cheaper today than say, 2009. I remember paying almost $300 for my 22" Acer monitor. Nowadays, you can get a 24" monitor for as little as $150.

Yes, they're lower. As I stated above, you can buy cheaper hardware that's good enough for gaming. You don't need to buy a high-end CPU and dual video cards. You can settle for something cheaper like the 2nd-gen Core i5s (which have very similar gaming performance to the Core i7s). Also, the launch prices for video cards with similar names haven't gone down (e.g. Radeon HD 6870 to Radeon HD 7870); however, performance has gone up with each new generation. For example, a medium-end video card from last year is this year's new low-end video card. I remember paying $400 + tax for my Radeon HD 2900 XT.

As for modding, "comeback" was the wrong word to use. I think a better word is "booming". The Steam Workshop is a great example of how a developer can embrace modding. Fans of games like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 have done a lot to add new hats, weapons, etc.

Perhaps our definition of gaming rigs are different. I've never spent more than $500 on a gaming machine. Back then, when I first switched from nVidia to ATi, I had myself a Radeon 9600 playing Halo and Morrowind. I never felt behind in gaming, and that stuff I built back around 2004ish I believe. Then I discovered World of Warcraft. I guess it's all a matter on how well you want to run the games, but I've never had issues with framerate...

Hell, around 2008-2009, I bought this computer with an AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor. The only game I ever had issue playing was GTAIV, which was due to the fact that it was processor heavy. Still, I managed 20-25fps or so and beat the hell out of the game. Upgraded to an AMD Phenom II x4 just for Guild Wars 2 since it wasn't optimized well enough for the GPU, being CPU heavy too. Between that and an nVidia 9800GT, I'm very capable of even running Battlefield 3 smoothly, zero hiccups. Sure, I don't have everything maxed out, but I do have things like AA on and such. It also looks many times better than what you'd see on a game console too, with a butter-smooth framerate.

I've always been the "bang-for-the-buck" kind of guy though. No one has to spend $800 on a computer. That's utterly ridiculous, unless you work full time with a decent job. I'm just a broke college student right now, working part time. I guess my point here is I've never felt "left out" in the gaming world, nor that my rig was ever crappy. Every game I run is on a 1680x1050 resolution too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not kidding. I paid over $1200 for my gaming PC back in 2007. Right now, I could build a decent one for $800. It's a mixture of better prices and better performance. It allows you to settle for less but still have better performance than a year ago. Everything from monitors to CPUs to video cards are cheaper today than say, 2009. I remember paying almost $300 for my 22" Acer monitor. Nowadays, you can get a 24" monitor for as little as $150.

Must be fortunate with pricing over there, because here an entry-level Core i5 is still ?150, an entry-level full-ATX motherboard is still around ?80-?100 and video cards start at ?80 unless you want something barely any better than integrated graphics (these are of course the newer versions now, with the older ones no longer available). To go further back, a Pentium Dual Core from 2008/9 cost me ?80-?90 at the time and the newest one available costs ?75 now, while the entry-level Core i3 (that I'd presume is supposed to replace the Pentium DCs now) is at ?90. You could say that you get more bang for your buck (when hasn't this been the case?), but the prices aren't really any lower here.

The biggest thing holding PC gaming back though IMO has been, and will probably continue to be, the elitist attitude. I know it doesn't apply to all PC gamers, but my impression (even when I was one myself) has always been that they don't appreciate the amount of effort it takes to develop a game and instead moan about "problems" that are largely created by themselves. Theyarecomingforyou alluded to this kind of issue in the Far Cry 3 thread.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC game sales are not "predicted" to rise. They are increasing, and there are facts to prove that.

It's -20 outside now, yesterday it was -8 ish. So in a week it'll be - 90 outside here. Damn my heating bill will go up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest thing holding PC gaming back though IMO has been, and will probably continue to be, the elitist attitude. I know it doesn't apply to all PC gamers, but my impression (even when I was one myself) has always been that they don't appreciate the amount of effort it takes to develop a game and instead moan about "problems" that are largely created by themselves. Theyarecomingforyou alluded to this kind of issue in the Far Cry 3 thread.

I disagree completely. In fact I'd go so far to say the "games are hard to make so you cannot criticise" types of logic are actually is what is holding back PC gaming. It is all too often invoked by (Not accusing you here) fanboys and people that don't encounter any issues to try and excuse developers from adding essential options to their games - such as FoV.

You have to remember in most cases we're talking about large corporations with huge investment budgets and high profit margins, they don't care if their games are good or bad; just that they make money. They're not interested in some people criticising them on a forum, except when they need a scapegoat for their shoddy workmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's -20 outside now, yesterday it was -8 ish. So in a week it'll be - 90 outside here. Damn my heating bill will go up...

Yeah yeah, I get it. You try to be funny commenting my language errors. Next time try to post a comment worth reading instead.

-----

On topic: It will be interesting to see what Valve is planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah, I get it. You try to be funny commenting my language errors. Next time try to post a comment worth reading instead.

-----

On topic: It will be interesting to see what Valve is planning.

Actually it had nothing to do with language and more to do with the logical fallacy you proposed.

And any game that involves messaging, like first-person shooters or MMOs. Typing a message on a controller is so torturous that I've heard it's been approved for use by the CIA.

Chatpad, though I've never seen a game that needs or requires messaging, not even MMO's, especially not on 360 since they all have headsets, thou I don't generally chat with the people I play with anyway, in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that because a controller was designed for gaming, it's better than a keyboard (and mouse)? If so, then you're wrong. A mouse and keyboard is undeniably better than a controller for first-person shooters and real-time strategy games.

Well that's not necessarily true, some FPS games work as well with a controller, but arguably, a keyboard and mouse is also a sub optimal controller for them.

As for RTS games. While I generally agree that they need a mouse, this is not universally true.the much under appreciated Halo wars showed that not only can RTS games be done on a controller, they can be done damn well, in some ways better than kb/m. Still a large scale strategy game like TA and SupCom, not so much.

There are of course other games where controllers are universally better than kb/m, like pretty much any third person game, Diablo like games with the right controls would be better than kb/m. Racing games are of course far better on a controller, and equally much better on a wheel(with certain exceptions like TrackMania where you pretty much need a gamepads controller to compete, and kb second while you can't possibly drive with a wheel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's not necessarily true, some FPS games work as well with a controller, but arguably, a keyboard and mouse is also a sub optimal controller for them.

It is far more optimal, as it doesn't require the developer add autoaim to counteract its natural weakness.

But yes, it could be improved.

Realistically, this is why all the yapping about NUI stuff (natural user interface...voice, Move, Kinect, Wii, whatever) now...because neither of them is really a great option...they're just the best ones we have for certain types of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree completely. In fact I'd go so far to say the "games are hard to make so you cannot criticise" types of logic are actually is what is holding back PC gaming. It is all too often invoked by (Not accusing you here) fanboys and people that don't encounter any issues to try and excuse developers from adding essential options to their games - such as FoV.

I didn't say you can not criticise developers. I do it all the time when the need arises. I said PC gamers have a unique ability of inventing "problems". They claim things to be necessary or a basic requirement when they are little more than a preference, would provide no observable benefit or don't fit the artistic direction. And when this happens they don't just explain what is wrong and why, they behave like a whining 3 year old and start blaming consoles even if there is no connection whatsoever. Some games are "terrible" simply because they are released on console as well as PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're on the low end of console refresh, once the new consoles are out people will be in love with the consoles again as the graphics will be PC grade once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say you can not criticise developers. I do it all the time when the need arises. I said PC gamers have a unique ability of inventing "problems". They claim things to be necessary or a basic requirement when they are little more than a preference, would provide no observable benefit or don't fit the artistic direction. And when this happens they don't just explain what is wrong and why, they behave like a whining 3 year old and start blaming consoles even if there is no connection whatsoever. Some games are "terrible" simply because they are released on console as well as PC.

Problem is how do you define what is a preference and what isn't? A feature like FoV could be argued to be a preference by many, but for those that suffer with motion sickness - it's completely essential.

It's all too easy to be quick and say something is just a preference or has no observable benefit such as engine tickrates, vsync policy, ingame UI, etc. Complaints don't generally magic themselves out of nowhere.

And let's be honest here, whether people like to admit it or not; consoles have had an impact on game development, and that doesn't mix well with profit-centric studios for PC games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is how do you define what is a preference and what isn't?

Using a bit of common sense. That some game doesn't work with a uber-edition mouse, or an 8-monitor setup or some such seems perfectly reasonable to me as they are special cases and not the norm. But those are technical issues, of which there are many that are technically sound requests (editing the keyboard mappings, support for popular controllers, vsync on/off, etc).

The ones that really irk me are those that are gameplay related. Things like regenerative health, cutscenes, button-press sequences, smaller/less-complicated maps and such are moaned about and blamed on consoles. These are an artistic choice, not down to consoles. PC gamers treat them like massive problems though.

Then there are things like mod support. Why is this supposedly a requirement? It is nice to have, but why do PC gamers treat it like some sort of god-given right? Mod support is developer time and I think it is perfectly reasonable for a developer not to implement it if they don't want to (sometimes there are other reasons, such as keeping a level-playing field for MP).

A feature like FoV could be argued to be a preference by many, but for those that suffer with motion sickness - it's completely essential.

I've never seen an option to change it in a PC game, even when they were supposedly not influenced by consoles. I have had console games that give me motion-sickness though due to their FoV or camera angle - I just don't play them.

And let's be honest here, whether people like to admit it or not; consoles have had an impact on game development, and that doesn't mix well with profit-centric studios for PC games.

What impact is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a bit of common sense. That some game doesn't work with a uber-edition mouse, or an 8-monitor setup or some such seems perfectly reasonable to me as they are special cases and not the norm. But those are technical issues, of which there are many that are technically sound requests (editing the keyboard mappings, support for popular controllers, vsync on/off, etc).

The ones that really irk me are those that are gameplay related. Things like regenerative health, cutscenes, button-press sequences, smaller/less-complicated maps and such are moaned about and blamed on consoles. These are an artistic choice, not down to consoles. PC gamers treat them like massive problems though.

Those aren't purely artistic choices; smaller and less populated maps can be due to restricted memory budgets, QTEs arguably exist due to limited number of inputs in a controller vs a keyboard and even cutscenes have been used because of limitations.

Then there are things like mod support. Why is this supposedly a requirement? It is nice to have, but why do PC gamers treat it like some sort of god-given right? Mod support is developer time and I think it is perfectly reasonable for a developer not to implement it if they don't want to (sometimes there are other reasons, such as keeping a level-playing field for MP).

Mod support isn't developer time, it's not locking your game down by encrypting configuration files, removing developer consoles etc. It does not take much effort to make a modding community flourish. Nor does mod support have to have an impact on MP.

I've never seen an option to change it in a PC game, even when they were supposedly not influenced by consoles. I have had console games that give me motion-sickness though due to their FoV or camera angle - I just don't play them.

When PC game development was not influenced by consoles, most people were using 4:3 CRT monitors or early LCDs, FoV was not a huge concern. "Just don't play them" isn't really helpful for people that have already bought the game.

What impact is that?

As I touched on above, limited resources in console such as memory cause maps to be smaller and less populated to conserve precious system memory, texture resolution is sacrificed and shader masks are less used. AI can also be impacted with a limited number of CPU cycles. Plus the whole 30 vs 60 tickrate thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't purely artistic choices; smaller and less populated maps can be due to restricted memory budgets, QTEs arguably exist due to limited number of inputs in a controller vs a keyboard and even cutscenes have been used because of limitations.

How does that work for all the open world games, that are getting bigger and better than ever before? Surely GTAV should have a 10cmx10cm map due to the PS3's low memory? I personally think it is a combination of broadening a game's appeal (not everyone wants to spend hours getting lost) and the amount of effort required to make it. This is the point I was making earlier about how it is taken for granted how hard it is. The amount of detail demanded on a map now for a console game is at least 20 times that of a PC game from 10 years ago. At the same time, they need to make the games on a smaller timescale (impatient publishers/gamers who want the sequel within 2 years) and the price of the game has remained the same. It seems perfectly logical to me that maps would get smaller. It is no surprise then that open world games not only take longer to develop, but then have considerably less detail, animations and scripting than more linear games.

QTEs... I'll admit I'm not always a fan of them (they can be used to good effect), but "exist due to limited number of inputs"? I really don't know what you are trying to get at here. By that logic shouldn't all console games consist of QTEs alone? I think it is more down to developers wanting to make some of the previously animation-only sequences more interactive. Whether they work or not is debatable.

Mod support isn't developer time, it's not locking your game down by encrypting configuration files, removing developer consoles etc. It does not take much effort to make a modding community flourish. Nor does mod support have to have an impact on MP.

That'd be fair enough if all people wanted was to "mod" the game files directly, ala modding of old. Except now it requires programs/tools for decompressing/making new maps/models, support for them to be loaded by the game as extras or overrides, in some cases scripting capabilities, etc. Even then there are potential legal implications of any third-party/proprietary technology used (of which there is a lot nowadays).

"Just don't play them" isn't really helpful for people that have already bought the game.

Play the demo first. If there isn't a demo, watch gameplay videos and read reviews. If you can't judge from those, don't take the risk unless you are prepared to lose out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that work for all the open world games, that are getting bigger and better than ever before? Surely GTAV should have a 10cmx10cm map due to the PS3's low memory? I personally think it is a combination of broadening a game's appeal (not everyone wants to spend hours getting lost) and the amount of effort required to make it. This is the point I was making earlier about how it is taken for granted how hard it is. The amount of detail demanded on a map now for a console game is at least 20 times that of a PC game from 10 years ago. At the same time, they need to make the games on a smaller timescale (impatient publishers/gamers who want the sequel within 2 years) and the price of the game has remained the same. It seems perfectly logical to me that maps would get smaller. It is no surprise then that open world games not only take longer to develop, but then have considerably less detail, animations and scripting than more linear games.

Sandbox games manage by having a lower detail density than a linear game, and by streaming level data from disk as it's needed.

As for "taking it for granted" goes, that's completely irrelevant. As I said before, these are big profit-centric corporations and they're making these games for business, not for pleasure. I would agree with you if we were talking about an indie dev/studio, or one of the smaller studios like Double Fine/Obsidian that want to make good games first; but for big Triple-As? No sympathy.

QTEs... I'll admit I'm not always a fan of them (they can be used to good effect), but "exist due to limited number of inputs"? I really don't know what you are trying to get at here. By that logic shouldn't all console games consist of QTEs alone? I think it is more down to developers wanting to make some of the previously animation-only sequences more interactive. Whether they work or not is debatable.

I'm not really sure how you think it's logical to take that to absurdity. The point I was getting at is controllers have fewer inputs than a keyboard, so where you could throw a few more keys at a scenario to make it work, consoles don't have that luxury. So instead of using key combos or additional controls, you get button mashing.

That'd be fair enough if all people wanted was to "mod" the game files directly, ala modding of old. Except now it requires programs/tools for decompressing/making new maps/models, support for them to be loaded by the game as extras or overrides, in some cases scripting capabilities, etc. Even then there are potential legal implications of any third-party/proprietary technology used (of which there is a lot nowadays).

Incorrect. Other than the more recent trend of encrypting certain files, games have used compressors/decompressors since Doom. Have you forgotten WAD files?

The only difference now is the ugly trend of encrypting certain game files, thankfully something that is becoming less common.

Play the demo first. If there isn't a demo, watch gameplay videos and read reviews. If you can't judge from those, don't take the risk unless you are prepared to lose out.

Or developers could just have integrity and surface the ability to alter the FoV as standard with a PC release, rather than hide it away. And before you say anything about development time, every game uses FoV calculations, so it's just a matter of adding a UI widget to adjust a pre-existing variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandbox games manage by having a lower detail density than a linear game, and by streaming level data from disk as it's needed.

As for "taking it for granted" goes, that's completely irrelevant. As I said before, these are big profit-centric corporations and they're making these games for business, not for pleasure. I would agree with you if we were talking about an indie dev/studio, or one of the smaller studios like Double Fine/Obsidian that want to make good games first; but for big Triple-As? No sympathy.

The technology exists, so why don't they do the same thing to have larger linear levels then? Choice. Not because of consoles, but choice.

Just because there is a big profit-centric corporation at the top of the chain doesn't mean the developers don't care about doing a good job. Regardless of the people at the top, developers slog it out - it is no secret that many people in the industry work extremely long hours and not for as much money as one would expect (although both points are supposedly improving at the moment).

I'm not really sure how you think it's logical to take that to absurdity. The point I was getting at is controllers have fewer inputs than a keyboard, so where you could throw a few more keys at a scenario to make it work, consoles don't have that luxury. So instead of using key combos or additional controls, you get button mashing.

You could have tonnes of key combos on a controller. Using the right-hand buttons of a PS3 or Xbox 360 controller alone have at least 14(? figured it out in my head visually) different combinations. Add the d-pad and there is another 14, more if combined with the previous buttons. Then the triggers and (arguably) the analog stick buttons... loads of combinations are possible. The question is why don't they use them then? My guess would be that learning too many key combinations for the majority of people becomes counter-productive to enjoyment.

If anything, the PC has more of an argument for using QTEs than consoles. It is an extreme example, but you could quite easily press X, left D-pad, R1, L1 and R2 on the PS3 controller, but try pressing W, F, X, C and Ctrl on a keyboard (with your right hand on the mouse initially). It is possible, but requires much more hand twisting and you certainly wouldn't be able to do it in a hurry. Realistically though, three buttons at once is probably the limit for both (excluding mouse/analog sticks) and console controllers are more than capable of this.

Incorrect. Other than the more recent trend of encrypting certain files, games have used compressors/decompressors since Doom. Have you forgotten WAD files?

The only difference now is the ugly trend of encrypting certain game files, thankfully something that is becoming less common.

I think we are talking about two different kinds of modding. I'll accept that in many cases it can be as straight forward as decompressing map/model/texture, editing it and recompressing (although there could still be legal issues). I'm thinking more of the modding in games such as Sim City 4, where there can be scripting mods, building replacements, building additions, etc. It requires the game to be specifically designed around the idea in the first place, and it is the kind of modding I see "demanded" most often.

Or developers could just have integrity and surface the ability to alter the FoV as standard with a PC release, rather than hide it away. And before you say anything about development time, every game uses FoV calculations, so it's just a matter of adding a UI widget to adjust a pre-existing variable.

To be honest, I have no idea why they wouldn't add it. Clearly the devs don't see it as an important enough issue, or maybe aren't even aware of it (given that it is a new issue). Even so, they don't owe you anything. They made the game and if you don't like it, don't buy it. Gaming is a luxury, not a right.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there because this will go on forever.

I quite frankly think this is the golden age of gaming. Sure, many of the old franchises I enjoyed are now utterly ruined (C&C, R6, CoD, MoH) but that is down to the respective publishers who have milked them to death - not a specific platform. But for every "dead" franchise, there is another one to take its place, and in some cases, old franchises that have found new life. Never have I been happier as a gamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pc's and laptops are pretty cheap nowadays, you can get a decent computer for ?200 and a decent laptop for ?350. Also pc games are usually cheaper than console games in order to combat rampant piracy. Another reason may be that AMD and Intel apu's are starting to get usable graphics therefore removing the need for a gpu for the casual gamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.