• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Cliffy B is teh hater.

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
Kinda Depressing:

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com...of-war-creator-update/

?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? what?s driving the PC right now is ?Sims?-type games and ?WoW? 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.?
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com...of-war-creator-update/

?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? what?s driving the PC right now is ?Sims?-type games and ?WoW? 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.?

If Gears of War sells 4 million on the 360 and a year later sells 1 million on the PC, then is that really bad considering most people have already played it?

Secondly you take UT3 and you realize that it was basically the same game in a shiny new engine. The singleplayer was an embarrassing joke.

http://www.thesimexchange.com/...unreal+tournament+2007

As you can see, UT3 sold virtually the same on PS3 and the PC, despite the PS3 market having far fewer shooters. So the point is, maybe there was something wrong with the game? In the end, yes, we do still have a problem here, but I don't think UT3 was that good of a game to begin with.
 

skyofavalon

Senior member
Jul 11, 2007
328
0
71
he's not a hater,just a realist.WoW and MMORPGs in general are the worst thing to happen to PC gaming.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
First of all, the "platform wars", ESPECIALLY the console v PC debate, is long dead and is no longer relevant. What's more, the PC won.

Modern consoles ARE PCs. How people fail to realize this is beyond me. Both Microsoft and Sony's latest game machines are rocking:

- Multiple Cores
- Dedicated graphics hardware
- RAM
- Optical Drives
- Internet/Digital Media capability

They are PCs now for christ sakes, and frankly if they'd just get some decent firmware in there allowing the use of a USB keyboard/mouse for shooter titles and RTS games, I would jump the fence and never look back. It's MUCH easier for developers to debug on three different hardware platforms than the wild jungle of DIY PC Configurations. Even so, the complicated hardware is causing its share of PC-like problems, such as the RRoD on the 360.

It was the only logical choice really. Consoles reached a point near the last cartridge-driven systems where the only way to progress the games was to embrace more and more PC-like technology, because all the innovation was being done there on the hardware end. Console makers don't want or need hardware innovation (Blu-Ray is another discussion unique to Sony's strategy), they need bulk refined hardware at lowish cost. They can get this easily from last year's PC tech.

The current gen of consoles are closed-box PCs sold at a loss with the goals of simplicity and purpose-specific function.

Think about how impractical it is to game the on PC these days - the cost is massive, the development is harder and harder every year largely due to Q/A costs and post-release support. Consoles, especially with the advent of HDTV and online abilities, make far far more sense for far far less cents.

As noted, all they have to do get me a mouse and keyboard with full support on the consoles, and I doubt I'll ever game on the PC again. I'd still have one, because I use it for a hell of a lot more than gaming, but that would cease to be a *needed function* of any PC I built. The console would have assimilated all the PCs gaming advantages and eliminated its drawbacks. Not to mention the decreased cost. I am A-OK with all three.

 

erwos

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2005
4,776
0
76
Originally posted by: ja1484
Modern consoles ARE PCs.
I completely disagree. The big difference between consoles and PCs is manufacturer control, not hardware.

The biggest advantage to PCs is the lack of manufacturer control. You can run whatever you want on a PC. That is _not_ true of consoles, where the hardware and software requires licensing and must conform to certain standards - standards which are not always strictly quality-based. That's why the PC has a thriving small independent development scene, and the consoles, for the most part, do not.

This is loosening somewhat, too - the PS3, in particular, supports open standards for some hardware peripherals, and allows you to run your own OS, albeit with heavy restrictions. But to point to hardware specs and tell us that PCs are consoles... sorry, just not the case.
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
Originally posted by: ja1484
First of all, the "platform wars", ESPECIALLY the console v PC debate, is long dead and is no longer relevant. What's more, the PC won.

Modern consoles ARE PCs. How people fail to realize this is beyond me. Both Microsoft and Sony's latest game machines are rocking:

- Multiple Cores
- Dedicated graphics hardware
- RAM
- Optical Drives
- Internet/Digital Media capability

They are PCs now for christ sakes, and frankly if they'd just get some decent firmware in there allowing the use of a USB keyboard/mouse for shooter titles and RTS games, I would jump the fence and never look back. It's MUCH easier for developers to debug on three different hardware platforms than the wild jungle of DIY PC Configurations. Even so, the complicated hardware is causing its share of PC-like problems, such as the RRoD on the 360.

It was the only logical choice really. Consoles reached a point near the last cartridge-driven systems where the only way to progress the games was to embrace more and more PC-like technology, because all the innovation was being done there on the hardware end. Console makers don't want or need hardware innovation (Blu-Ray is another discussion unique to Sony's strategy), they need bulk refined hardware at lowish cost. They can get this easily from last year's PC tech.

The current gen of consoles are closed-box PCs sold at a loss with the goals of simplicity and purpose-specific function.

Think about how impractical it is to game the on PC these days - the cost is massive, the development is harder and harder every year largely due to Q/A costs and post-release support. Consoles, especially with the advent of HDTV and online abilities, make far far more sense for far far less cents.

As noted, all they have to do get me a mouse and keyboard with full support on the consoles, and I doubt I'll ever game on the PC again. I'd still have one, because I use it for a hell of a lot more than gaming, but that would cease to be a *needed function* of any PC I built. The console would have assimilated all the PCs gaming advantages and eliminated its drawbacks. Not to mention the decreased cost. I am A-OK with all three.
You can't modify and mess around with consoles. You can't add a new graphics card or download freeware applications. You can't extra RAM to the ridiculously low 512mb in the 360 and PS3. So no, consoles are nothing like a PC other than their internal hardware components.
 

styrafoam

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,684
0
0
Wasn't/isn't cliffyb sort of a running joke to the pc gaming "community"? I'm trying to remember what gaming sites ritualistly busted his balls every time he blogged about crybaby shit or put up a picture of himself with a new haircut and new jewelry.

So many good PC games have been released in the last couple years, I have no idea how he can make the generalizations he does. Wow and the Sims will sell more units than he will ever dream of, but they aren't the be all end all of pc gaming as he implys.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
1
0
UT3 is a console game. Epic jumped ship long ago.

And Cliffy is a tard. Make a good game for PC and it will sell if you market the damn thing. Other titles seem to be selling well, but Cliffy just ignores that. I think Epic was disappointed with UT2k4 sales - a great game, universally acknowledged by reviewers, with abysmal marketing. At that point it looks like they decided to move to console. GoW was a serious foray into primary development for the console, which received a fair amount of success, due to marketing of course.

Hey Cliffy, here's an idea. Don't make a shitty port from console, don't kill everything that was good about the game, and try get your publishers to market the damn thing for once.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,588
445
126
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
You can't modify and mess around with consoles. You can't add a new graphics card or download freeware applications. You can't extra RAM to the ridiculously low 512mb in the 360 and PS3. So no, consoles are nothing like a PC other than their internal hardware components.
Makers don't want you to mess with the console...then they can't sell you a 120mb hard drive for a 400% markup! :p

I never get the cheaping out on ram for the consoles. The original xbox had 64mb? Thats lame as hell! The later games really suffered because of it.

And 360 has 512mb shared? Ugh. I know consoles can often make better use of their resources then PCs...but that thing showed in an era where 1GB of ram on PCs was fairly common. And that wasn't shared! That thing is going to be ram constrained pretty quickly and I'm sure it already limits the type of game worlds that can be created for it.

These decisions are especially perplexing to me since ram is such a cheap item these days.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: erwos
Originally posted by: ja1484
Modern consoles ARE PCs.
I completely disagree. The big difference between consoles and PCs is manufacturer control, not hardware.

The biggest advantage to PCs is the lack of manufacturer control. You can run whatever you want on a PC. That is _not_ true of consoles, where the hardware and software requires licensing and must conform to certain standards - standards which are not always strictly quality-based. That's why the PC has a thriving small independent development scene, and the consoles, for the most part, do not.

This is loosening somewhat, too - the PS3, in particular, supports open standards for some hardware peripherals, and allows you to run your own OS, albeit with heavy restrictions. But to point to hardware specs and tell us that PCs are consoles... sorry, just not the case.

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
You can't modify and mess around with consoles. You can't add a new graphics card or download freeware applications. You can't extra RAM to the ridiculously low 512mb in the 360 and PS3. So no, consoles are nothing like a PC other than their internal hardware components.

What exactly are you guys arguing? Here's a breakdown of how this thread went:

Me: Consoles and PCs are pretty much hardware equivalent now. The hardware is controlled from the vendor, and consoles are not general purpose machines, but for gaming, they're definitely a more elegant solution.

You: You're wrong! The hardware is vendor controlled!

You2: They're not general purpose machines, you wee-wee head!




I mean really...reading comprehension please?
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: jjones
And Cliffy is a tard. Make a good game for PC and it will sell if you market the damn thing.

Yeah, but not to the degree a console title will.

Let's say you can put an equal amount of effort into a title and you can sell either 1.5 million or 3 million copes. Which platform you gonna launch on?
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: ja1484
Originally posted by: jjones
And Cliffy is a tard. Make a good game for PC and it will sell if you market the damn thing.

Yeah, but not to the degree a console title will.

Let's say you can put an equal amount of effort into a title and you can sell either 1.5 million or 3 million copes. Which platform you gonna launch on?
how about develop for both and sell 4.5 mil copies? develop for pc simultaneously, not release a shitty ass port.
 

erwos

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2005
4,776
0
76
Originally posted by: ja1484
What exactly are you guys arguing? Here's a breakdown of how this thread went:

Me: Consoles and PCs are pretty much hardware equivalent now. The hardware is controlled from the vendor, and consoles are not general purpose machines, but for gaming, they're definitely a more elegant solution.

You: You're wrong! The hardware is vendor controlled!

You2: They're not general purpose machines, you wee-wee head!

I mean really...reading comprehension please?
I think you misread the rebuttal. You were implying that the only difference between consoles and PCs was hardware, and since they're hardware-equivalent, they're the same sans lack of support for mice. We attacked this implication by pointing out that there were other differences besides hardware support, and that PCs are not substitutes for consoles (or vica versa).

If this wasn't what you were trying to communicate, you failed at writing your thoughts in a clear fashion. Don't pin it all on lack of "reading comprehension", and try not to rewrite our responses as immature, when they were clearly not.
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
Originally posted by: ja1484
Originally posted by: erwos
Originally posted by: ja1484
Modern consoles ARE PCs.
I completely disagree. The big difference between consoles and PCs is manufacturer control, not hardware.

The biggest advantage to PCs is the lack of manufacturer control. You can run whatever you want on a PC. That is _not_ true of consoles, where the hardware and software requires licensing and must conform to certain standards - standards which are not always strictly quality-based. That's why the PC has a thriving small independent development scene, and the consoles, for the most part, do not.

This is loosening somewhat, too - the PS3, in particular, supports open standards for some hardware peripherals, and allows you to run your own OS, albeit with heavy restrictions. But to point to hardware specs and tell us that PCs are consoles... sorry, just not the case.

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
You can't modify and mess around with consoles. You can't add a new graphics card or download freeware applications. You can't extra RAM to the ridiculously low 512mb in the 360 and PS3. So no, consoles are nothing like a PC other than their internal hardware components.

What exactly are you guys arguing? Here's a breakdown of how this thread went:

Me: Consoles and PCs are pretty much hardware equivalent now. The hardware is controlled from the vendor, and consoles are not general purpose machines, but for gaming, they're definitely a more elegant solution.

You: You're wrong! The hardware is vendor controlled!

You2: They're not general purpose machines, you wee-wee head!




I mean really...reading comprehension please?
So in other words you have nothing to refute the points I made and point to our "lack of reading comprehension" when your obviously not too bright at it yourself. Nowhere in my post was I even talking about consoles as a "general purpose machine". I was simpily referring to the lack of hardware or software customizability on a console, which certainly affects gaming.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: erwos
I think you misread the rebuttal. You were implying that the only difference between consoles and PCs was hardware, and since they're hardware-equivalent, they're the same sans lack of support for mice. We attacked this implication by pointing out that there were other differences besides hardware support, and that PCs are not substitutes for consoles (or vica versa).

If this wasn't what you were trying to communicate, you failed at writing your thoughts in a clear fashion. Don't pin it all on lack of "reading comprehension", and try not to rewrite our responses as immature, when they were clearly not.

I wasn't *implying* anything. I was *saying* outright that for gaming purposes, consoles and PCs are close enough to identical now that the distinctions don't matter.

Perhaps the lot of you *assumed* something different. Not my problem if you're jumping into areas that aren't under discussion.



Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
So in other words you have nothing to refute the points I made and point to our "lack of reading comprehension" when your obviously not too bright at it yourself. Nowhere in my post was I even talking about consoles as a "general purpose machine". I was simpily referring to the lack of hardware or software customizability on a console, which certainly affects gaming.

I'm not going to refute your points because they're the same points I made in my post. They weren't the central topic, but they were there.

Why on earth would I want to refute them?


As for the "lack of customizability affecting gaming", possibly, but only in a detracting sense. Everyone on a console gets the same experience with a given game (differences in Live subscription notwithstanding, and not due to anything having to do with the hardware regardless). People on the PC don't, due to "hardware customizability". Hell, even hardware identical PCs sometimes have different play experiences because of software.




You guys seem too intent on nitpicking, such that you're missing the overall point, which is basically that the game console could *not* beat the PC at gaming prowess in its early iterations, and thus became as much like it as possible given its role in order to progress to the modern era.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
how about develop for both and sell 4.5 mil copies? develop for pc simultaneously, not release a shitty ass port.
They do, but:

First of all, you don't develop for both simultaneously because that drives up cost. The smart development company just builds an engine/SDK that allows them to compile content into the proper form for all three platforms depending on which button they push.

Which is, of course, exactly what Epic Games did with the Unreal 3 tech, and is a large reason why their tech has been so successful in the licensing arena. Developers can have a single team develop content, just as before, and then "cook" it for compatibility on whichever platform(s) they want to launch on. Minimize cost, maximize revenue.

Given the emphasis on multi-platform launches and the expense of game development these days, its no wonder the tech took off like a rocket.

I agree, it'd be nice if developers took a month or so to rewire the control/HUD screens to be a little more PC friendly, but in all honesty I doubt that kind of thing affects sales to a great degree, so (as we've seen evidenced time and again) they generally think of that sort of work as "optional".
 

milesl

Member
Oct 11, 2004
103
0
0
Nothing from these guys has been as good or as popular as the original Unreal and Unreal Tournament(the first one) on PC.
They had to formula perfect,unfortunately they don't know what they did or how to repeat it.
Deck 16 anyone?
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: milesl
Nothing from these guys has been as good or as popular as the original Unreal and Unreal Tournament(the first one) on PC.
They had to formula perfect,unfortunately they don't know what they did or how to repeat it.
Deck 16 anyone?
While I agree that the originals were their strongest games, I think it's hard to argue that Gears was less popular than both.

You can argue the merits of the game all you want (I enjoyed it), but the point is pure number of people exposed.
 

erikistired

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2000
9,739
0
0
i hate to say it but pc gaming is becoming a niche these days. i used to be a console hater, but these days my 360 gets a lot more time than my pc does.
 

milesl

Member
Oct 11, 2004
103
0
0
Originally posted by: ja1484
Originally posted by: milesl
Nothing from these guys has been as good or as popular as the original Unreal and Unreal Tournament(the first one) on PC.
They had to formula perfect,unfortunately they don't know what they did or how to repeat it.
Deck 16 anyone?
While I agree that the originals were their strongest games, I think it's hard to argue that Gears was less popular than both.

You can argue the merits of the game all you want (I enjoyed it), but the point is pure number of people exposed.
Well I was talking about the PC.
How many games are still for sale from the authors 8-10 years after release and are still played online?You can still buy the original Unreal and Unreal Tournament in the Unreal Anthology and people still play them online(I know there are more just saying these are from epic).
Although gow had initial uber sales thanks to the console crowd, I doubt it will still be for sale 8-10 years from now or remembered as one of the best games ever released.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: fisher
i hate to say it but pc gaming is becoming a niche these days. i used to be a console hater, but these days my 360 gets a lot more time than my pc does.
Problem is, you grow out of console gaming. You're not going to have an Xbox360 in the living room when you're married and be playing Halo for three hours after work. You're going to come home, handle your business, and toss in an hour of TF2 or WoW while she's getting ready for bed. It's just more convenient and pratical to hop on your computer and check email, check a couple sites, launch a game and play for a bit, check email again, and log off.
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Problem is, you grow out of console gaming. You're not going to have an Xbox360 in the living room when you're married and be playing Halo for three hours after work. You're going to come home, handle your business, and toss in an hour of TF2 or WoW while she's getting ready for bed. It's just more convenient and pratical to hop on your computer and check email, check a couple sites, launch a game and play for a bit, check email again, and log off.
Thta's funny... I find my consoles to be a nice change of pace from sitting at a PC all day, so they still get plenty of use (read: the bulk)... and, yes, I'm married.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: fisher
i hate to say it but pc gaming is becoming a niche these days. i used to be a console hater, but these days my 360 gets a lot more time than my pc does.
Problem is, you grow out of console gaming. You're not going to have an Xbox360 in the living room when you're married and be playing Halo for three hours after work. You're going to come home, handle your business, and toss in an hour of TF2 or WoW while she's getting ready for bed. It's just more convenient and pratical to hop on your computer and check email, check a couple sites, launch a game and play for a bit, check email again, and log off.
I thought it was supposed to be just the opposite. Consoles games are for casualfags who want easy games they can play with a family after work or something. :confused:
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Some say WoW / MMOs are the worst thing to happen on PCs. Whatever the case, they prove one thing, the market is there. How many copies has WoW sold? Several million? All of these articles seem to hint at some sort of peak 1.5 million max number of pc gamers which doesn't really exist. The problem is they just can't get PC Gamers attracted to their games.

I wish Steam would put out some sales numbers, some people might change their tunes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS