Why don't game developers understand that a PC is not a console? (ahem, Skyrim)

[exar333]

This is why:

Over the three platforms, 59 percent of Skyrim copies were sold for the Xbox 360, 27 percent for the PS3 and 14 percent for PC

http://www.dailytech.com/The+Elder+...Retail+Sales+in+First+2+Days/article23293.htm

That's not a very accurate sales metric though; MANY people got this via digital download on PC. 14% via retail sales is actually pretty good. I would venture that at least 33% (and more like 50%) of PC sales are via digital downloads. This would put it in-line with the PS3 sales, which is probably likely.

Fact is, for the complainers about 'consolized' PC games, cross-platform games are here to stay. If the worst thing about a new game is the menu UI, I can live with that. if these types of issues are impossible for a PC games to stand, wait and play the game a year later when mods fix the issues. I would prefer to play a game period, with some minor flaws, than not to play it at all.

The game is a lot of fun, and I don't see menus destroying the whole experience. This is from a PC-gamer for 20+ years...PC games are not perfect either...

 

[SMOGZINN]

What saddens me is that the profitable potential of the PC is misunderstood/unrecognized by publishers these days. Even with mass pirating, there should be more attraction to the PC platform when there is more profitability in each PC game sold at $50 than their is console game sold at $60 because there are no royalties to pay MS or Sony. The addition of mods, better graphics/performance, etc gives rise to the possibility of a console gamer buying the PC version at a later point for these aspects too.........

For them to really realize that dream they need to program for a computer that is about 4-5 years old. Lets face it, very few of even computer enthusiasts upgrade more often then that.

 

[mirandu04]

For me any game that tries to be on all platforms sucks just because of controls. every time you try and play an RPG you get a headache if it has controls made fro consoles ....

 

[SZLiao214]

The ui for this game and weapon sets make me rage so much at this game. I'll wait till the ui overhauls come in.

 

[mingsoup]

They programmed lead on a console no doubt and PC users suffer big time for it. Very lame.

 

[lord_emperor]

For them to really realize that dream they need to program for a computer that is about 4-5 years old. Lets face it, very few of even computer enthusiasts upgrade more often then that.

Something like an Xbox 360?

The things people want on PC should not be that hard. Adjustable graphic options and a UI which is not an exercise in frustration to use with a mouse & keyboard.

For the record I have no significant gripes with Skyrim's UI using patch 2.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Skyrim's UI would've been "meh" if it functioned properly. Unfortunately, whoever programmed it doesn't understand that flash's mouseover UI event only fires when your pointer crosses a border, and not when an item appears underneath it. Since in a typical skyrim menu, that happens lots, the UI feels stupidly unresponsive.

That's my biggest complaint with the UI -if the items on the screen change and the one you want is already right under your mouse pointer, you still have to move the mouse out of it then back over it for it to register.

It's basically a wrapper on a gamepad interface, and a bad one at that. However, the good news is that it's also quite moddable, and while Flash ain't exactly the most powerful environment in the universe, it's plenty powerful enough for the modders to make a good UI.

 

[Brigandier]

For them to really realize that dream they need to program for a computer that is about 4-5 years old. Lets face it, very few of even computer enthusiasts upgrade more often then that.

It works on my clunker PC. Athlon X2 OC'ed to 2.5 GHz, and AMD 4750 with two gigs of ram. It ain't pretty, and noticeably freezes, but it's playable.

 

[Blitzvogel]

For them to really realize that dream they need to program for a computer that is about 4-5 years old. Lets face it, very few of even computer enthusiasts upgrade more often then that.

Even console developers will tend to work with assets that in the end will be tapered down to fit the memory and performance limitations of the given system they are working on. And building a good PC game doesn't necessarily mean leaving the console versions behind graphically in an all out manner. The ability to run a real 1920 x 1080p framebuffer, much better AA, AF, better shadow resolution and lighting, draw distance and higher framerate is enough for me to prefer the PC version usually, even if the in game assets like models and textures are the exact same. Luckily the things mentioned in the previous sentence really don't require much more than replacing a number with a larger one (for example 1024² shadowmaps instead of 256² ones). Even if such options are not explicitly available to a PC gamer, chances are they can find a CFG or INI file to mess with. It's not to say I don't like having higher quality assets, but I'm not so bummed out by the lack thereof as much as I am with a shoddy port. I'm looking at you GTAIV.

With games like Skyrim, where modding is easily doable, it can be left to the PC gamers to produce the higher quality assets or configurations they may want, so that is saved money and development time for the developer, which [hopefully] means more focus on game design and optimization which is what really matters.

The way I look at it, a multiplatform PC game shouldn't need more than a Geforce 9600 GT 512 MB or Radeon 3850 512 MB at most in order to be graphically comparable (same assets, LOD, etc) to it's console brethren at 720p with 2x AA. It's also becoming ridiculous how CPU heavy some of these ports are becoming. I understand it can be a pain to rewrite code, but it sure produces a much higher quality product, and even older dual cores like Core 2 Duos and Athlon II x2s are pretty good performers in their own right.