I don't really care one way or another.
Adding PC into the mix creates a lot more work and support needed for the game. It also requires a lot more control and security.
Not to mention the audience just isn't there for FPSs on PC.
The costs probably didn't outweigh the benefits.
English
-
Edited by D1rty0ldman: 5/22/2013 3:34:43 PMThe reason the audience is not there is because all the games recently have been a big disappointment. Most of the time the campaign mode is great and the Multiplayer sucks. Everyone(PC users) is tired of the small maps with very limited objectives. If you really want to see numbers. Steam has over 20 million registered users with an average of 2.5 million active players. Bungie wants to make this the next greatest series, it needs to include us PC gamers or it will fail.
-
[quote] an average of 2.5 million active players.[/quote] That's the number of people [i]Logged on[/i]. Not playing. My computer at home is included in that count. I'm most definitely not playing a game there. [quote] it needs to include us PC gamers or it will fail.[/quote] No... No it won't. The PC market isn't as big as the console market - especially for shooters. That's just a fact, regardless of what you think.
-
Your funny, there are lots of FPS players on PC. I do have to agree with the rest of what you said though. It doesnt require as much control though necessarily. It depends on how bungie feels about player-owned servers and the like.
-
Tell me, what are the sales numbers for the two biggest FPSs out right now on consoles vs. PC? You'll notice the population difference is drastic.
-
That's because nobody wants to sit at their computer with an FOV of 65. It's nauseating to play most PC ports. But proper PC FPSs (Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2) have a large number of players.
-
[quote]That's because nobody wants to sit at their computer with an FOV of 65.[/quote] BF3, I know for a fact, has adjustable FoV. What's your next crap excuse?
-
You're ignoring the point I made about CS and TF2.
-
Please, explain what [quote]But proper PC FPSs[/quote] means. You mean Valve controlled games that don't have proper console support have better PC support? GASP. It's almost as if those VALVE games were made for PC and shittily ported over to consoles! BF3 has amazing PC support (I'd love for you to explain why its console support is better than its PC support. Please, do). But the fact of the matter is that it lags way behind on PC.
-
Edited by Ginsu85: 5/22/2013 5:05:19 AMI agree with everything but the audience... I do play FPS games on the PC every now and then and for the Multiplayer games their are a ton of people playing... even if the sales are low... their still a lot of people playing...
-
There are actually relatively few technical problems they should have considering an Xbox is really just a glorified computer running a windows OS with "XBOX" slapped on it + some proprietary features like the dashboard. Especially so considering how they've explained how the Xbox One works as well. Considering they could use Steam to do the job for achievements and DRM/Security against cheaters(VAC), there's really not much preventing it from being a relatively easy thing to do, and Activision already does this for Call of Duty and it's worked well for them before, with the exception of MW2. But, that game was horribly mismanaged at the time on PC, so it led to the cheater issues in it because IW/Activision didn't try to manage it at all. Porting a game to windows from xbox isn't like porting a game to mac, which is a completely different and nightmarish issue if one were to try that since the architecture is very different. PC may not be the current majority, but one has to wonder if the Xbox One doesn't pull off some kind of miracle at E3, what will happen with the people ditching it? A lot of people already play on consoles and PC, if they're pushed to it they may just hop the fence and go for PC. (or PS4, I suppose.)
-
Edited by ArcGuard: 5/22/2013 1:30:00 PMYou're joking with me... right? Porting from 360 to PC is worse than porting from PC to Mac. They're completely different architectures and use completely different instruction sets. The 360 is most certainly NOT just a PC with a windows OS slapped on. The Xbox One is much similar to a PC, given it has the same architecture, but the porting is not nessecarily where the work comes from. The work comes from this simple fact - How many Hardware/software sets are there out there for the Xbox 360 right now? There are fewer than i have fingers and toes. Now how many PC hardware/software combinations are there out there? Pseudo-infinite. And you have to support them all. You have to bloat your code to make it work on older computers. You have to make sure it works with AMD and Intel, along with both AMD and Nvidia for GPUs. And every combination of those, new and old. You have to make it work with different drivers. You have to support people who have problems installing, launching, updating, etc. These are issues you don't have on a console. If a player wants to play online on a console, they are going to have the most up to date hardware and software guaranteed. That's not the case on PCs. PCs require the absolute most time and work for support out of any platform. Hands down. Edit: Also, for the record, Macs and Windows computers have the exact same architectures and use the exact same parts. If they didn't, you couldn't just install windows on a Mac. (the reason you can't install the Mac OS on all windows machines is because you can only run the mac OS on Intel/nvidia based machines)
-
Before you go claiming wild claims with no grounds please cite actual evidence, because I can assure you it's been well known that Xbox 360 and Xbox One operate on an operating system based off windows. That means similar video drivers and architecture, so on, so forth. The other thing is you don't know what the difference between Mac and PC is, clearly. Mac operates on a kernel that's similar to linux in a few regards - whereas windows runs on DOS. That's why it's an issue, not the hardware at this point. So no, they do not have the same architecture and you cannot claim that. Architecture means the actual OS's coding, not the physical specs. Any computer these days can be hackintosh'd if you can manage to make it work despite the fact that it often fails if the specifications don't match what they built the OS for. As far as hardware goes, I will give you that. But that's pretty much the only hurdle if they use steam. Updates, etc? That's issues from literally like 6+ years ago. Steam auto-updates all my games and I can play them online whenever I feel like. It's not like in Battlefield 2 where we have to manually update the game every 3 weeks because it's old enough that it doesn't hook into a game launcher/manager like steam or origin. PC really isn't nearly as terrible as you're making it out to be, honestly. The only valid point you've made about the whole thing is the hardware differences, which, yes, you are correct on. Frankly if you're going to make tons of claims and jump to conclusions on information you do not have a lot of knowledge on, at least cite your sources before trying to prove me wrong please. Because the majority of what you just said is incorrect. You quite obviously don't work with computers a ton or something because no-one who actually does would claim that windows and mac have the same architecture when they fundamentally do not. (lol)
-
Edited by ArcGuard: 5/22/2013 5:27:53 PM[quote]similar video drivers and architecture,[/quote] You literally could not be more mistaken. The xbox 360 uses [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC[/url] while a Windows computer (and the new xbox/PS4) use [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86[/url]. They are fundamentally different. Absolutely different. MACs run on, you guessed it, x86. [quote]Architecture means the actual OS's coding[/quote] No. Architecture means architeture. It's about their instruction sets. For the love of god, stop claiming things you don't understand.
-
I stand corrected on those. I apologize, but you sounded like you were making things up. But "smaller market" is apparently still enough to get Activision and other developers to make PC versions, even if the market is somewhat smaller on PC. So I don't see why they wouldn't try to consider it if they do it with 90% of the rest of the multiplatform games out there currently. If a developer like 4A Games can make their game work on all platforms & sees a reason to do it despite the fact that they were in totally shit conditions, I don't see why a giant like Bungie should even think twice about it when they obviously have the resources and ability to make it happen. It's well within their realm of abilities.
-
It's all about cost vs. return. You ship it on PC, you're not even going to get a third off what you do on any console. Is it worth it? Is that extra cost worth it? Is the extra need for security worth it? Is the extra development time worth it? Is the extra support staff worth it? From everything we've seen, they must have decided that it wasn't. They've confirmed it's shipping on 4 platforms: 360, One, PS4, PS3.
-
I dunno, I can at least hope they're considering it. Maybe down the line at the worst, I'll buy it a second time on PC even if I have it on console myself. Who knows, perhaps they were waiting on the next gen systems since PC is on those systems' level already. It seems unusual for Activision to go with it this way though, they seem to consistently have ports of all the games they publish to PC. Although I don't really get why they'd avoid it when they obviously have a fanbase on PC. Who knows, maybe they'll do something with the Steam Box if Valve's still doing that; it would fix the issue with the hardware at least.
-
[quote]Not to mention the audience just isn't there for FPSs on PC.[/quote] Wut.
-
Check the two lead selling FPS, CoD and BF. You'll notice the drastically different sales numbers. What big PC shooters are still around these days? TF2 and CS:GO? Unreal is pretty dead. Quake and doom are dead. What's left?
-
Quake isn't dead. Q1 still has players - that's 17 years it's been alive for. [url=http://www.quakelive.com/]Quake Live[/url] is more active than ever - with daily tournaments, not to mention Quakecon which happens every year. The superior platform for the first-person shooter genre is the personal computer, because it has better output and input devices - playing a game at 120 FPS on a 120hz monitor with a keyboard and mouse is more enjoyable than playing a game at 30 FPS on a high latency TV with a controller - making aiming retarded. The mass consumers have fallen prey to the trend and advertising campaigns. Just because consoles are more popular doesn't mean there's not a PC audience. Indeed new first-person shooters are released on this platform, and popular console first-person shooters are ported to the PC. Nevertheless, it's understandable why console first-person shooters are as popular as they are with casual gamers: in-built aimbots.
-
Just because there are less FPS players on PC doesn't mean it isn't a viable market. Considering Destiny is, by definition an MMO, it makes sense it would do well on PC. The primary MMO market [i]is[/i] PC, after all.
-
But it isn't and MMO. And they have been veeeeeeery careful and meticulous in letting us know that. It is a shooter. And regardless of how shooters used to sell, they do not sell on PC anymore. The Console space is now the shooter space.
-
An MMO is a game where... [quote]a large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world[/quote] Bungie is calling it a "Shared World Shooter", but you can phrase it however you want; but by definition it's an MMO. [quote]It is a shooter. And regardless of how shooters used to sell, they do not sell on PC anymore. The Console space is now the shooter space.[/quote] I'm not in any way refuting the fact that consoles are the dominant platform for FPS games. What I'm refuting your assumption that the PC isn't a viable market for an FPS game. I'll be the first to admit that the market is no where close to the size of the console market, but there is a completely viable PC market for an FPS game. Destiny's shared-world aspect is something that would be familiar and appealing to many PC players, due to the amount of PC-exclusive MMO's.