If you go and look where Electronic Arts and most major publishers are primarily making their money, it's not on the PC (there's just a few exceptions along the lines of Blizzard and NCSoft). Sales of PC games made up only 11% of EA's total in the last quarter, and this proportion continues to gradually shrink. From EA's point of view, it's more likely to be a waste to develop something just for the PC, because so many more people play games on consoles and handheld systems now.
EA typically makes multiplatform games for as large an audience as practical, but not every game goes this route. If you analyze the trends, you can kind of read into this a bit. Sony PSP sales made up 8% of EA's take last quarter, and this is an area where EA is growing strong. It's entirely possible that PSP games could eclipse PC games very soon. Their next biggest growth platform is the XBox 360 (and then cell phone games, which actually accounted for an impressive 4% of last quarter's sales).
I think I can understand what he's trying to say, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.I don't understand a word you're saying.
One word on consoles and cheap: You ever tried to play an RTS on a regular TV screen? 640x480@60 Hz? Ouch. So you will practically need an additional HDTV screen.
Plus Keyboard and Mouse. Still sure that this is cheaper then a midclass PC?
They don't have WASD/Mouse controls on consoles? How can they possibly play FPS games?
Anyway I do hope as well that we can get a compilation pack....I used to have the Kilrathi Saga but can't find it anywhere now...but it goes for serious money on eBay let me tell you that!
Have you seriously not seen us talk about this on numerous occasions?
The thing about this is that it's reserved for a tiny minority. An XBox 360 or PS3 has more processing and graphical power than the average WC fan's PC today (not to mention the general gaming public), and it'd be cheaper and easier for most WC fans to go out and buy an XBox right now than it'd be to start looking into CPUs, video cards, replacement motherboards to handle these components and so on. The gaming market is moving towards consoles for a reason. There are very real benefits now to playing there.
Take something like C&C3 that was originally just announced for the PC. I have a bunch of friends who were sad about that because they didn't have and wouldn't have a computer up to playing it, but they all have XBox 360s. PCs might have potential for a "truely awesome gaming experience," but consoles are delivering it to more people right now. I'll be able to sit in front of my big tv and sound system and kick back while playing, and voice and video chat with all my friends will be easily and automatically built in to the C&C360 interface. All the graphics and framerate should be superior to what most PC players get, and it'll be easier to connect with all my friends through XBox Live. I'll also be able to track all my friends' progress via their achievements lists. It sounds like it'll be a better way to play all around.
I'm glad not everyone has a Wii controller lodged in their brain. I would be pretty sad if the next Wing Commander game was made specifically for Consoles, like the bastard Mechassault games were made mainly for consoles and consequentially ruined the Battletech franchise.Going to conclusion - i beleve that PC gaming market will be reborn, and i hope that new WC will be primerly a PC game
Why can't you play an RTS on a TV, though? There've been console ports of Dunes, C&Cs, Red Alerts, Starcrafts and others.
Mice, trackballs, and keyboards are far more suited for the quick and precise movements required for playing RTS games than the comparitively clunky console controls. This is why basically no RTS games are ported to consoles: they just don't work on them.
The Battle for Middle-earth II proves that real-time strategy works on the Xbox 360. It's also a pretty impressive game, as well. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/battleformiddleearth2/index.html
You also state that PCs aren't delivering right now. PCs are lightyears ahead of consoles in graphics,
while consoles on the whole are decent but are simplified for the common person who knows that PS3 > PS2 because 3 > 2. The advantage consoles have is that they are simple and cheap, and when a new one rolls around, you just put the old one in the closet, while computers can be tailored and upgraded. You'd be suprised on how well a good gaming computer ages.
I'm glad not everyone has a Wii controller lodged in their brain. I would be pretty sad if the next Wing Commander game was made specifically for Consoles, like the bastard Mechassault games were made mainly for consoles and consequentially ruined the Battletech franchise.
Sure. And after half an hour my eyes are full of tears and another 30 mins later they seriously hurt. And by the end of the day I need glasses.
I might be especially sensible to bad refresh rates, but doing something that requires lots of attention to details (working, RTS, FPS,... ) on a regular TV or a cheap VGA monitor is simply not even worth discussing for me. Party games, racing, jump and runs, those are ok (if there is enough distance to the screen).
And no, you cannot convince me that a gamepad is any useful for an RTS or for aiming in a FPS (replacing the wasd with a 'stick' is ok even if it is something one has to get used to first). Fast movement, ok, they can be great there. But not precision.
You're right on most of the points but this. You don't see an auto-aim feature for the vast majority of PC games. You just can't accurately use a gamepad without said auto-aim.If you can get used to moving with the stick, you can get used to aiming with it too. If you're just opposed to the mere idea of it, our describing how we actually do it won't sway you; but millions of people are switching/taking to it and having tons of fun.
You're right on most of the points but this. You don't see an auto-aim feature for the vast majority of PC games. You just can't accurately use a gamepad without said auto-aim.
You just don't have very good hand-eye coordination then. It's not really that hard to adapt to using a mouse. Add to that a mouse can allow you to shoot at specific body-parts instead of madly hoping to hit the enemy at all, and the mouse is totally superior. My first time playing an FPS game on the PC was back in 97' when I was some 6 years old. I could accurately fire even then and found it very intuitive. And when I first tried to play the same thing on a console, well I couldn't stand it. It's a god-awful method of aiming. What gamepads are meant for is the adventure, racing and fighting games that the consoles most often had back in the 90s. They clearly weren't designed for an FPS.When I shoot at something in a game, I'll either hit or miss depending on how well I aim. That's the same with a mouse or a gamepad. A mouse could technically allow for more accuracy, but it's certainly wrong to say that you cannot be accurate with a gamepad. But when it comes down to it, you can talk forever about mouse DPIs and analogue stick compensation and so on, but those details don't really change the total picture here. I've been a PC FPS player for thirteen years; but I played an FPS game on a console till 4 AM this morning and I haven't touched a PC one since August 2004. Things that do have an impact on how people play is how intuitive a control scheme is, how easy it is for new players to learn and how much nuance is embeded in it to allow advanced players to master. These are all things I've found to be superior with a controller for shooters.
You just don't have very good hand-eye coordination then. It's not really that hard to adapt to using a mouse.
Add to that a mouse can allow you to shoot at specific body-parts instead of madly hoping to hit the enemy at all
What gamepads are meant for is the adventure, racing and fighting games that the consoles most often had back in the 90s. They clearly weren't designed for an FPS.