Epic's Cliff Bleszinski calls PC gaming a mess
Oh my, how the times have changed.
This is about a week old, I meant to post earlier but I was too lazy
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17382
Epic Game's Cliff Bleszinski has laid the smack-down on PC gaming with a huge diss. From the article:
“I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and Gears is at 4.5 million right now on the 360.
I think the PC is just in disarray,” he stated. “What’s driving the PC right now is Sims-type games and World of WarCraft and a lot of stuff that’s in a Web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That’s the direction PC is evolving into so for me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we’re doing. It’s important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we’re at.”
Yikes. This is the man who had a hand in the UT series and controls where it goes in the future. No wonder UT3 was simplified with a bad case of what I call "consoleitis". Don't get me wrong, the game is good and still the best deathmatch on the PC, but this is the franchise that the PC made famous. Being a HUGE fan of the UT series since it's birth, UT3 definitely did not feel like the step up it should have been.
And now Epic games doesn't see much value in the PC, particularly because of sales numbers. Maybe had they spent more time making the PC version of UT3 more like it's past incarnations and making it fell less like a from-console port, it would have sold as well as it's epic preceding titles.
This is frustrating to me. The PC gaming platform is a strong as ever, with technologies like CryEngine 2 and the offset engine propelling it far beyond consoles. To suggest that the platform is simply for sims-type games and WoW is completely asinine. I'm afraid we may never see another solid UT title on PC with the likes of UT2004.
This is about a week old, I meant to post earlier but I was too lazy
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17382
Epic Game's Cliff Bleszinski has laid the smack-down on PC gaming with a huge diss. From the article:
“I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and Gears is at 4.5 million right now on the 360.
I think the PC is just in disarray,” he stated. “What’s driving the PC right now is Sims-type games and World of WarCraft and a lot of stuff that’s in a Web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That’s the direction PC is evolving into so for me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we’re doing. It’s important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we’re at.”
Yikes. This is the man who had a hand in the UT series and controls where it goes in the future. No wonder UT3 was simplified with a bad case of what I call "consoleitis". Don't get me wrong, the game is good and still the best deathmatch on the PC, but this is the franchise that the PC made famous. Being a HUGE fan of the UT series since it's birth, UT3 definitely did not feel like the step up it should have been.
And now Epic games doesn't see much value in the PC, particularly because of sales numbers. Maybe had they spent more time making the PC version of UT3 more like it's past incarnations and making it fell less like a from-console port, it would have sold as well as it's epic preceding titles.
This is frustrating to me. The PC gaming platform is a strong as ever, with technologies like CryEngine 2 and the offset engine propelling it far beyond consoles. To suggest that the platform is simply for sims-type games and WoW is completely asinine. I'm afraid we may never see another solid UT title on PC with the likes of UT2004.
0
Comments
True it seems that older developers like Id seem to be moving to the console but multiple other developers have sprung in to fill the void.
I also think ol' cliffie might be speaking from a purely shooter perspective. I don't see other genre's (MMO's, RTS's, etc.) really benefiting from a console control system. If you ask me consoles have continuously been evolving to be more and more like the PC.
However, I do somewhat agree with his statements. You'd be dumb to NOT focus on consoles at today's point and time.
It's not all about piracy. It's also target architecture. It's the age old argument about compatibility and compromise towards standards that are all over the place. My 8800XL card doesn't support shader model 3, so I cannot actually play Bioshock even though the card is performant enough to run the game on moderate settings. There are plenty of us gamers out there without the current funds to upgrade. So we lose out. A decent card will cost me £150. I can get a 2nd hand XBOX360 for that and I know that every game I buy will work. It's simple logistics.
Haven't owned a console since I was old enough to realize that they are just crappy computers. The lines between gaming consoles and computers will continue to blur until people who like consoles will not own a computer and will satisfy all their computer needs on their console, especially as more and more software shifts to web based the platform becomes irrelevant. I will always game on a full blown PC. Some people will do it all on their console. Trying to get the console guys to see my side of it is like trying to convince people who used WebTV that they were missing out on the personal computing experience.
/drunk post
At least we still have Valve.
But true, the consoles are where the money is at. It's got the numbers, and it's fool-proof. They always have been. That's fine with me, it's no different than when I started getting into PC gaming. The part that worries me is when established developers and franchises of PC gaming start to cater partially, or even entirely to the console platform - leaving us out to dry. That's a future that I don't want to see. Fortunately we have companies like Blizzard, Valve, and Crytek who change the gaming industry with each release.
There's also the couch factor. How many people game on a PC in their living room? Especially for multiplayer games. There's just too much flexibility and stability to disregard consoles.
Beyond that, there's even the scalability factor. I can buy a PC with an 8800GTX in it that will be a good gaming experience. But I could get two 8800GTs in SLi and it would be better. Or two 8800GTXs in SLi and it would be better. Or even all the way up to three 8800GTXs now with three-way SLi. On the other hand, I can buy a single $300-500 piece of equipment and it will play every game I buy for it at its maximum settings with no muss, no fuss, no penis envy at the guy with triple SLi down the street.
(I game on both, so this is pretty much a neutral argument, I think.)
A PC can do everything a console can do.
A console can't do everything a PC can do.
LOTS more people play console because of the hardware consistencey of a console when playing multiplayer, while in PC gaming, it can sometimes come down to whos got the best NIC to fight lag or whos mouse has the greatest DPI.
About this article, you guys do know it was just a PR stunt right?
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=93389
AND NOW: The greatest game franchise ever: Sid Meier's Civilization is coming to the console. The next entry into the franchise, Civilization: Revolution, will be made for the consoles, and ported to PCs. I'm not looking forward to this.
According to the preveiw documentation it will be 'just like past civilization games, except a group will be able to get through a whole game in only several hours.
WHAT!
THE thing that makes Civ so great is that it's so epic. It takes over 40 hours to play a single game due to the sheer depth and immense scale of the mechanics. There is no way to make this game shorter without destroying everything that makes it great.
I'm hoping it's a good game, of course, but I'm not expecting it to be anything near as good as any past Civ games.
SNES was like £40 when I got that, paid 50 for my gamecube, 120 for my DS Lite. PS2 I got new so that was slightly more again.
Paid 400 for my comp and it's laster longer and played more than the consoles combined. - Gamecube needed a few new cables, my old DS had unresponsive shoulder buttons and my SNES... well, that's built out of bricks, so that's fine. PS2 is going strong, but the disk tray is slightly bent and the games are drying up.
It's actually LESS expensive, even though the computer market progresses faster, to keep upgrading my comp over time - sure, having a PS3 or an Xbox360 might let me play Halo 5 War Gear Combat Meltdown Pro, but a new console will come out the next year with Halo 10 War Ultra: Combat Pro Gears. Everyone will rave about this, too.
And thus everyone will buy their X-Box 720's and PS4's.
I, meanwhile, will have bought a 120 pound graphics card, got another stick of RAM and a new case with more fans in it. And it won't cost me the 600+ pounds the next-next-gen console will. Even if I don't upgrade, I can play on "low" settings.
This is the problem with consoles; you HAVE to buy the new, more expensive one and essentially lose the money you spent on the old one - a PC will never need -replacing-.
Carmak is the guy who gave us doom3. Cliffy B is from Epic (They made the unreal games).
IMO unreal 3 wasn't that great Felt like a bad console port,Same with Gears of war.
Games such as the fine games from valve are probably the only really good pc games right now.
Bioshock was ok but its drm system is evil. I have to crack a game that I payed for because ive reinstalled my os too many times. (You get 5 reinstalls of bioshock).
Crysis wasnt too bad either it was pretty average... but the graphics... oh man so nice.
Like I said, I game on both, and I don't really have a preference; certain games I will always play on PC, like most stuff from Valve (and waiting impatiently for Spore), but stuff like Bioshock went straight to console. Combination of HD, big screen, and a guaranteed experience is too good to pass up, especially when you hear about the DRM issues of late. And that's only going to get worse, people.
Plus I fold like a FIEND on my comp, and I'd rather not detract from its ability to turn in WUs like fire.
Another big deal to me is the amount of independent work on games that is totally missed by Consoles. Albeit consoles are getting better through their online marketplace, but M$ will always make you pay for something. True independent works are harder to find on PC, but other minor change programs or conversions of current games or "mods" present a HUGE advantage to PC market. Look at TFC or Counter-Strike. Would those have come into being if Half-Life was a console only release. PC = greater creativity and freedom.
Also in the price debate you have to factor in the cost of games which is cheaper in the PC market. Most new PC games retail at $50 while major console games are a good ten bucks more. My old roommate bought Halo 3 for like $75, $80 Holy crap! He played it for like a month.
I lol'ed at mas0n's pic. Thats how I view most Halo fanatics. Its a good game, prolly the first great shooter to come out on console, but it's not a religion by any means.
Also, community-generated content is slowly making inroads. UT3 has a bunch of user-gen'd stuff that's apparently really easy to get to and install on the PS3. I never really got into like the Garry's Mod or stuff like that, but I could see how it's fun for people.
Along the same vein, though, cheating/tweaking/hacking/whatever you want to call it is easier on a PC than it is on a console. I enjoy playing COD more on console than on a PC because I'm a little more sure that nobody's using an aimbot or something like that.
Frankly, we could go back and forth on this all day, and all it means is that both sides have redeeming qualities. Cliffy B just needs to shut up and put out a good game and maybe PC gaming won't be such a mess.
yes.
Before, I did have a dog in this fight. We (my family) started gaming with the Nintendo Entertainment System - the first unit they made with the cartridges. We enjoyed it so much. We used that for years before we got our first computer. My first computer (1995) couldn't even play the bundled game without overheating and crashing. Our second console was the Nintendo 64, which the whole family, neighbors, and friends enjoyed. About this time I started building computers and discovered that it is not easy (expensive) to keep up with demanding games. Video cards - graphics card - good cooling. It all adds up to not insignificant money. And no, the cost for upgrading a computer to keep up with demanding games is higher than purchasing a new generation console every three years. Well, and then I lost interest in gaming (except Microsoft Pinball!), my son bought an XBox, and the evolution of gaming in our household move the action away from PCs almost completely to consoles. Perhaps the almost complete end of gaming on PCs in our household ended when my daughter and son-in-law bought my son an XBox 360 a year ago Christmas. Not once in the last three years has my son ever asked me to upgrade a computer for gaming. I volunteered on several occasions that I wouldn't mind putting a high-end video card in one of the home computers. (Well, at least before my son starting earning decent money on his own.) His answer was always no, that he enjoyed the simple convenience of popping a disk in his XBox and blasting away. He still plays a few games on the computers, but they are simple, 2D, flash-type games online. He seems to be sufficiently amused for a while with these and then returns to his XBox 360. (For what it's worth, he's a 19 year-old college freshman.)
Someone above posted about the ease of portability of a console. I think some of the most fun I've ever seen my son have was a few years ago when he and his friends got together with their XBoxes for Halo "LAN" parties. Projector, white wall, XBoxes, minimal cabling, and boom, within a few minutes they were having the time of their lives. Pretty easy compared to lugging around PCs, monitors, keyboards, switches...
I'm not advocating for either system, just relating our experiences.
I'm sure it is for a family on a very tight budget or a student who doesn't have time for a decent paying job. Concerning the family: Let's see, there's groceries, rent/mortgage, utilities, the dentist, car repairs, school clothes, taxes, charity, sports fees, a modest vacation.... Games, yeah, that's a real high priority, isn't it.
... and to you and Winfrey, here's my point:
If $10 a game is a big deal to you, do you seriously need to be paying $50 for a computer game? If you're tight on money, you need to not be SPENDING IT ON DIVERSIONS.
I also note nobody responded about the resale economy of PC gaming. You buy a console game for $60 and don't like it, if you bring it back any time in the next 4 months probably, you can get $15 or more off of it (assuming it's not like Madden or some crap), which drops it to cheaper than your $50 PC game. Still, if you're worried about $10, don't spend 5 times that on something that's just going to waste your time.
It's not a question of being tight on money "full stop," it's how much extra you're willing to spend on diversions AFTER the alotments to necessities.
Personally, I wouldn't mind spending the extra for something like SSBB - that's essentially the reason I got a Wii, after all, but 5 games at fifty bucks a pop is $250 dollars - I can get a serious hardware upgrade AND a couple of PC games for that.
"Bargain Bin" sales for PC games have some of the best titles I have ever seen, the 'bin' at GAME in town for console games has such titles as Pipelles Horse Ranch and Barbie.
Plus, even if you pay $60 for your X-Box game, there's no guarantee it's "good." Almost -all- X-box games cost that much, essentially, since they all use the same hardware and engine.
If you're paying $50 not $30 for a PC game it's probably one of the better games out there.
Also, in reference to the "120 pound graphics card" quote that Leonardo used;
Pounds Sterling, not Pounds/Stone/Ounces in a weight sense.
Trufax.
Console: Gaming, Internet, some DVD Features, high definition, £40 per game, £100 a year on Xbox live, £150-200 for the console.
PC: Gaming, internet, flexible DVD features, optional high def, £5-40 per game, you choose what you put into the PC, regular applications for homework etc.
There's probably alot more than I missed, but a PC can do everything a console can do except use xbox live which costs £100, so...
Sure you can't use your PC in the living room for couch potatoness, but if you care enough about PC gaming in the first place you buy yourself a screen that you're comfortable to pwn with. Sure PC games are more open to illegal copies, but you can also do more with them- you can get mods, addons, editors for more PC games than you can console games. Ultimately, in my opinion, you get more out of a PC than a console.
The last time I spent more than $40 on a game it was for the Orange Box, which is really three. The last game I bought was Armed and Dangerous for $10 at my local gamestop. The point I was trying to make is that if one game is released for PC and console, the PC one is typically cheaper. The extra fee usually (correct me if wrong) comes from developer's paying extra to have their game on that console.
I totally agree that money can be put to better devices than video games.