5 developers who still love PC gamers

[acheron]

I would include Relic and Firaxis on that list as well. But yes, they pretty much nailed the ones they had.

I hope Firaxis is still on the list. I have to admit I am a little concerned about them.

 

[nitromullet]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

You begrudge a company because they have successfully developed a game that players are willing to pay a monthly subscription for AND still pay for expansion packs? Yes, the money adds up over time, but if you consider the amount of game time spent and the amount of content available to the player, you would see that most players are still getting a lot of game for their money.

I agree with Dice, I don't see any reason why the shouldn't use the pc as there main platform. Bf2 sold several million copies without the consoles and I'm sure a solid Bf3 will sell similar if not more.

Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward. DICE has sh!t on PC gamers for years, they even admitted it themselves. Why not wait for the BF3 to come out first to see if anything they say about the game is true before kissing too much ass? Don't forget this game will be published by EA, so there is no telling what sort of douche baggery might surface once the game is actually released.

I assume that you are also aware that BF3 dedicated servers will allowed, but that these servers will need to be rented from EA/DICE's partners? You won't be able to run a BF3 server on your own box or rent from the co-lo of your choice. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...2009/10/26/dedicated-to-our-pc-players.aspx##

As for Blizzard, I think they would have jumped ship already if it wasn't for all of their ip just not working well on the consoles. Rts, arpg, and mmo's just don't work well with a controller.

Again, why not judge based on facts instead of conjecture and assumptions? The fact of the matter is the Blizzard currently has the most successful game on the PC platform and doesn't make any console games. As you said the type of games they make don't really lend themselves to consoles, but yet they haven't switched to a type of game that does.

 

[Bryf50]

Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward. DICE has sh!t on PC gamers for years, they even admitted it themselves. Why not wait for the BF3 to come out first to see if anything they say about the game is true before kissing too much ass? Don't forget this game will be published by EA, so there is no telling what sort of douche baggery might surface once the game is actually released.

Battlefield 2 is one of the few mp games i still enjoy and play regularly on the pc. It was also published by EA and just recently received a patch several years after release. Just because they dont release a new pc game every year doesn't mean they are shitting on PC gamers. They made several statements saying that they are committed to the PC and it makes sense based on the huge sales numbers for bf2. So until I have reason to believe otherwise I will continue to support them.

I assume that you are also aware that BF3 dedicated servers will allowed, but that these servers will need to be rented from EA/DICE's partners? You won't be able to run a BF3 server on your own box or rent from the co-lo of your choice. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...2009/10/26/dedicated-to-our-pc-players.aspx##

This sounds like the same exact system as bf2 which worked fine and helped ensure you weren't wasting time on some server hosted on someones 300kbps up cable connection.

Again, why not judge based on facts instead of conjecture and assumptions? The fact of the matter is the Blizzard currently has the most successful game on the PC platform and doesn't make any console games. As you said the type of games they make don't really lend themselves to consoles, but yet they haven't switched to a type of game that does.

I'll admit, I made a large assumption. I was more just trying to point out that all of Blizzards ip is deeply entrenched in the platform. So they don't have much of a choice unless they are willing to take a risk with a new ip or do something like Ghost which as we know didn't go so well.

 

[evident]

those 5 companies make great games for the pc, and frankly its fine with me since i can only spend so much time playing AAA games. everythign else i don't even look at anyways.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

You begrudge a company because they have successfully developed a game that players are willing to pay a monthly subscription for AND still pay for expansion packs? Yes, the money adds up over time, but if you consider the amount of game time spent and the amount of content available to the player, you would see that most players are still getting a lot of game for their money.



Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward. DICE has sh!t on PC gamers for years, they even admitted it themselves. Why not wait for the BF3 to come out first to see if anything they say about the game is true before kissing too much ass? Don't forget this game will be published by EA, so there is no telling what sort of douche baggery might surface once the game is actually released.

I assume that you are also aware that BF3 dedicated servers will allowed, but that these servers will need to be rented from EA/DICE's partners? You won't be able to run a BF3 server on your own box or rent from the co-lo of your choice. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...2009/10/26/dedicated-to-our-pc-players.aspx##



Again, why not judge based on facts instead of conjecture and assumptions? The fact of the matter is the Blizzard currently has the most successful game on the PC platform and doesn't make any console games. As you said the type of games they make don't really lend themselves to consoles, but yet they haven't switched to a type of game that does.

You're confusing BF3 with BFBC2. BF3 is going to be a true, pc exclusive, sequel to BF2. It will have modding tools, dedicated servers, and everything a proper PC game should have.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

I love how DICE is all of a sudden a dev that likes the PC when so many PC gamers hate BF2 and all the problems it had. Now people are loving them...

no one has any loyalties these days. it all changes at the flip of a switch.

Lets not forget about their reason for not supporting wide-screen. So dumb.

 

[BassBomb]

crytek!

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

crytek!

They are going multi-platform .

 

[nitromullet]

Battlefield 2 is one of the few mp games i still enjoy and play regularly on the pc. It was also published by EA and just recently received a patch several years after release. Just because they dont release a new pc game every year doesn't mean they are shitting on PC gamers. They made several statements saying that they are committed to the PC and it makes sense based on the huge sales numbers for bf2. So until I have reason to believe otherwise I will continue to support them.

They pretty much said they've been shitting on PC gamers themselves...

Now, the reasons the PC platform are getting seemingly "better" features in the game are a result of DICE ignoring the PC user base for the past 3-4 years

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/l...onid=986810144540CE0E0DF822F9988436BD#3110573

Don't get me wrong, BF3 might end being a great game for PC gamers... but I think to fall in love with DICE over BF3 before it has been released is a bit pre-mature. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit leery of anything related to EA until it has been launched.

 

[syrillus]

With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.

A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.

You picked the wrong things to gripe about. With WoW, as with most MMORPGs, monthly fee and charging for expansion packs is the norm. If you were going to complain about WoW, why not complain about their inclusion of tons of different ways of negating initial character-creation decisions by paying "small" ($15-30) fees? Or their recent inclusion of micro-transactions (albeit for cosmetic items only at this time) for a game that's already charging a monthly fee? Charging for expansions is not the issue you should be championing against.

And with SC2, I'll admit I was originally worried about the split of the game into "3 games", but realistically it's more like releasing the core game (with full multiplayer), and 2 expansions in which campaigns and units will be added. I'm much more concerned with their "evolution" of Battle.net. The announcement of a Battle.net marketplace, mixed with their vagueness in defining what will be a "free map/addon" and what will be a "paid map/addon" has me much more concerned than the expansions.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Don't get me wrong, BF3 might end being a great game for PC gamers... but I think to fall in love with DICE over BF3 before it has been released is a bit pre-mature. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit leery of anything related to EA until it has been launched.

You're confusing BF3 with BFBC2. BF3 is going to be a true, pc exclusive, sequel to BF2. It will have modding tools, dedicated servers, and everything a proper PC game should have.

..

 

[nitromullet]

You're confusing BF3 with BFBC2. BF3 is going to be a true, pc exclusive, sequel to BF2. It will have modding tools, dedicated servers, and everything a proper PC game should have.

You're right, BFBC2 launches on 3/2/2010. I don't see any official info on BF3... So, basically DICE's next release is a cross-platform game, but yet DICE is a champion of the PC platform because they supposedly have a PC exclusive in development?

The only reason the article in the OP cites as a reason for their inclusion of DICE on their list is the fact that BFBC2 will support dedicated servers. I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that the new found love for DICE is just a backlash because of the lack of dedicated servers in MW2, and it really has nothing to do with the overall quality of DICE as a PC supporting developer.

 

[BladeVenom]

Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward.

Some of us have liked DICE since Battlefield 1942, before CoD was even around. Some of us have always prefered the Battlefield games to the CoD games.

 

[nitromullet]

Some of us have liked DICE since Battlefield 1942, before CoD was even around. Some of us have always prefered the Battlefield games to the CoD games.

You seriously don't think DICE is just milking the whole MW2 dedicated server issue to paint themselves as the good guys so they can sell more copies of BFBC2 to PC gamers?

I'm not saying they are bad per se (or any worse than anyone else), but they seem to grown a halo since Infinity Ward made the no dedicated servers announcement. A little perspective is all I'm suggesting.

 

[tviceman]

I hope Firaxis is still on the list. I have to admit I am a little concerned about them.

Firaxis is solidly PC centric. Do you honestly think Civ Revolution outsold any Civ game on PC? I don't. And Pirates was PC first; consoles afterword. Civ IV continues to remain at the top of the selling charts on NPD, Steam, and D2D - an excellent indication the game not only sold well at release but has continued longevity in retail. They just announced Civilization for Facebook (tbh I'm not all that excited about that).

I imagine that Civ 5 will be announced/introduced around the release of facebook version.

 

[alcoholbob]

SC2 is supposed to be split into three FULL Campaigns, spread across three packs.

Essentially you will be getting three full length games, each with its own specific race at the heart of the campaign.

Despite my belief that SC2 will be average, much like SC1, I cannot sit and watch people trolling it because Blizzard have taken a different route to the normal campaign structure. With the changes in structure I believe multiplayer will be reasonably unaffected.

However, I do agree that the removal of LAN play was a mistake.

By full length games, you mean 2009 full length games that are now beatable in 5-10 hours, yes? So Blizzard has kindly graced us with 3 full length games. Now we can reminisce how back in the day, games like Starcraft were as long as 3 games.

 

[EarthwormJim]

By full length games, you mean 2009 full length games that are now beatable in 5-10 hours, yes? So Blizzard has kindly graced us with 3 full length games. Now we can reminisce how back in the day, games like Starcraft were as long as 3 games.

Blizzard doesn't seem to skimp out on play time. They never have and continue not to with WoW. The amount of play time I had in WoW (200 days?) compared to what I payed is pretty good versus other games.

Should really wait till it comes out before commenting.

 

[acheron]

Firaxis is solidly PC centric. Do you honestly think Civ Revolution outsold any Civ game on PC? I don't. And Pirates was PC first; consoles afterword. Civ IV continues to remain at the top of the selling charts on NPD, Steam, and D2D - an excellent indication the game not only sold well at release but has continued longevity in retail. They just announced Civilization for Facebook (tbh I'm not all that excited about that).

I imagine that Civ 5 will be announced/introduced around the release of facebook version.

Hope so. It's just after Revolution, and this Facebook thing (which I don't count), and they've been putting out more job postings for people with console development experience, etc., it just makes me a little worried.

I don't even need Civ 5, I'm hoping for an Alpha Centauri 2. (Though there's some rights issue with that I guess... EA owns (some of?) the rights to AC.) Or heck, they can make something new without a number on the end.

Or actually, they should remake Red Storm Rising. (Probably a rights issue there too with the other Tom Clancy games franchises and such.) I remember reading somewhere that Sid wasn't a big fan of his RSR game, but he is wrong, because it was awesome.

I'll take anything as long as it is a real PC game.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't even need Civ 5, I'm hoping for an Alpha Centauri 2. (Though there's some rights issue with that I guess... EA owns (some of?) the rights to AC.) Or heck, they can make something new without a number on the end.

That's funny if true considering the only reason alpha centauri was made was because they didn't have rights to civ at the time. I still think alpha centauri is the best civ game to date though would love a sequel.

 

[minmaster]

i read interviews that said they still thought SMAC was too hardcore for the masses. especially the custom unit building tool or whatever it was called. if you see how dumbed down some of the things in CIV has become, you'll agree somewhat with what they're saying. the problem is, all the more in-depth stuff was what made SMAC so great too.

 

[homercles337]

Dragon Age is the sort of hard and hardcore PC game that you'd think would be dead now... But I wouldn't be surprised if TOR ended up on console too (for one thing, it uses the Mass Effect convo wheel). PS3, at least -- I'm sure it will be too big for 1 Xbox DVD.

Dragon Age is what? I have played this game a lot and its nothing more than KoToR with a different wrapper. Totally undeserving of the hype and stellar reviews.

 

[acheron]

That's funny if true considering the only reason alpha centauri was made was because they didn't have rights to civ at the time. I still think alpha centauri is the best civ game to date though would love a sequel.

haha, yeah. curse you, irony!

Here it is:

Question: I'm a huge fan of Alpha Centauri and I still find myself playing the game 10 years now after it was first released. Is there any chance of a new Alpha Centauri game or a re-release of this addictive and masterful gem?

Sid: We’re all big Alpha Centauri fans as well. The series is owned by Electronic Arts (we were developing games for them back then), so the ball is in their court on whether or not to make a new version.

from the "Ask Sid" section of the Firaxis website. http://firaxis.com/community/asksid_archive.php?n_id=9

 

[photi]

if you see how dumbed down some of the things in CIV has become,

are you referring to civ revolutions? i have not played that iteration of civ, regardless i know it was never meant to be a replacement for the main game. from what i have read, revolutions was developed as a fun, alternative primer to the actual game so that console gamers could get a taste of what they are missing over at the pC.

do you mean that civIV/BTS has been dumbed down in parts? which parts are you referring to? i am a veteran of all the Civs, and as much nostalgia as i may have for the original (and maybe even more for Civ2 (dancing cleopatra anyone?)), BTS is much more complex and fun than any of the other versions. spend some time at civfanatics, firaxis would get crucified if they shifted their focus to the console. if you really think BTS is dumbed down, then you have never played the game.

read this post then read this post for proof that firaxis catered to their fanbase with the release of CIVIV/BTS. i linked directly to my own posts (from 2002), as the improvments/changes in civIV read lilke a checking off of my wish list, but the entire thread indicates that firaxis continues to cater to their [PC] fanbase.

firaxis definitely deserves to be included on the list devlopers who love PC gamers. firaxians are active on the [independent] civfanatics forums when need be.

 

[shortylickens]

Blizzard does not belong on the list, not after WoW and SC2. Valve has earned its spot though.

WoW is ONLY for the computer, and it is ridiculously, insanely popular.
StarCraft 2 is not out yet.

I do not see your logic, sir.

 

[Schadenfroh]

i read interviews that said they still thought SMAC was too hardcore for the masses. especially the custom unit building tool or whatever it was called. if you see how dumbed down some of the things in CIV has become, you'll agree somewhat with what they're saying. the problem is, all the more in-depth stuff was what made SMAC so great too.

CIV IV is lacking unit customization. I loved that feature of SMAC, "promotions" does not cut it. I also enjoyed that aspect of MOO2 and Star Control 2. Otherwise, Civ 4 is probably the best game to come out of Firaxis since the departure of Brian Reynolds, who was the man behind SMAC and Civ2.