Yeah, so, THIS happened; http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/90-minecraft-coming-to-xbox-kinect-this-winter/

Unimpressed. Why the hell would anyone play MC on XBox rather than on PC?

Some people don't play pc games at all.

I personally look forward to it. A chance to show my friends on the XBOX why Fortress Craft sucks so hard.

MC with a control pad? Ewww...

Oh, Beag, I've made your trap in SP:

Stop wasting time in single player and build it on the server! ...does it work?

I've played MC with an xbox controller on pc, not as nice as keyboard and mouse.

I never understand why people like consoles. When it comes to games like FPS, Minecraft and well anything other than a racing game console controls just suck. You don't get enough control out of them. Mouse + Keyboard gives you superior control.

Well i guess some people like having Aimbots built directly into games (Which XBox FPS games are meant to have so people can actually play them).

I never understand why people like consoles. When it comes to games like FPS, Minecraft and well anything other than a racing game console controls just suck. You don't get enough control out of them. Mouse + Keyboard gives you superior control.

Well i guess some people like having Aimbots built directly into games (Which XBox FPS games are meant to have so people can actually play them).

Stucuk

It's a cost effectiveness issue; a pc capable of running Gears of War nicely would cost at least twice as much as an xbox, and, for most people, console graphics are good enough. I would guess a high percentage of xbox gamers have never experienced pc gaming, and would struggle to use aa keyboard and mouse because it's not what they're used to.

Also, gaming with a simple control pad on your couch in front off the tv is whole different experience to pc gaming. I am predominantly a console gamer.

I agree, though, I don't think MC will translate well to console.

Ignore my typos; I'm using Swype on my Android.

I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.

I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.

Kahr

You're using Swype as well?

Oh god.... WHY?

I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.

Kahr

You're using Swype as well?

beagrie

I have no idea what that is.

It's a cost effectiveness issue; a pc capable of running Gears of War nicely would cost at least twice as much as an xbox, and, for most people, console graphics are good enough. I would guess a high percentage of xbox gamers have never experienced pc gaming, and would struggle to use aa keyboard and mouse because it's not what they're used to.

beagrie

Consoles cost more when you factor in the games. Console games are £30-£50 compared to PC games at £9-£29. Also PC Hardware is getting beyond what the games need, the minimum requirements are a GeForce 8 for most modern games, yet we have GeForce 150's (7 Generations higher). So you don't need to upgrade your PC each time a new games comes out, which was the old argument for buying Consoles.

So lets say a Console costs £200 and you buy a £500 PC. If you buy Console games for £40 and PC games for £19 (Both the rough average of min/max prices), then after 14 games a console will cost more. So if your not a gamer then it will be cheaper, personally i have far more than 14 games.

Ignoring the cost, you also don't get as much with consoles. With PC's you can get mods, etc, with consoles you don't.

You also have to take into consideration you can do alot more on a PC than a console. Its not just a machine for games, so you are getting more for your money.

Personally i prefer to invest in a PC for the long term than a Console for the short term.

The pricing argument seems a little mis-informed. Sure, there are lots of cheap games on the pc, but they aren't full production titles like Gears of War or Mass Effect. Likewise; you can get smaller games for cheaper on xbox live and psn. A direct comparison conflicts with your argument; Fallout New Vegas on amazon its only about 3 pence cheaper on the pc than the ps3. It's more on the xbox, but the reason for that it's because it selfs on the xbox. Out sales figures for Fallout were the same on all 3 platforms, the price would be too.

You DO get more from a pc, but the average of user these days can get all they need out of a sub £300 device, like a cheap pc or ipad, which they will already own, therefore the investment of a decent pc becomes ADDITIONAL to their existing device and, like I said, the games won't be any cheaper if they want to play the same big titles the console's get.

Which is another point; a lot of the big developers (Rockstar, for example) take a long time to get the pc versions out... if they bother at all!
I'm not arguing with you because this is how I think things should be and I disagree with you, this is just the situation at the moment.

The pricing argument seems a little mis-informed. Sure, there are lots of cheap games on the pc, but they aren't full production titles like Gears of War or Mass Effect.

beagrie

I was never talking about the cheap indy games. I was talking about the retail price for new games you get in shops. The highest price for a new PC Game is about £29.99 in shops though its mainly £24.99. The cheapest new XBox game in a shop is about £34.99 with them reaching £49.99 at the highest. All prices i chose were ones from the high street rather than online places like Amazon/Steam.

If you want to include cheap games then with a PC you have a FAR larger selection of cheap games, as PC's have been alive for far longer than any single console has. And im not talking about the XBox Marketplace type of gimic games but proper ones.

a cheap pc or ipad, which they will already own, therefore the investment of a decent pc becomes ADDITIONAL to their existing device

beagrie

There are more people who don't own an IPad than do own one. Its flawd to assume that anyone will own any kind of device.

Which is another point; a lot of the big developers (Rockstar, for example) take a long time to get the pc versions out... if they bother at all!

beagrie

Companies in general release for consoles first so they can make more money. Basically by releasing for consoles first you get people who own a PC capable of playing it who will buy it for the console so they can play it ASAP. Then when the PC version of it comes out they will buy that version as well because it will contain extras that the console versions don't have (Such as ability for mods, extra levels, etc). If it was the other way around, they wouldn't get multiple sales from the same people.

When it comes to companies releasing games only for a console like Alan Wake for example, its not always to do with whats the best platform, etc. Alan Wake was going to be on the PC as well but it looks like Microsoft wanted it to be an XBox exclusive. As a result it did poorly(Wrong target audience).

Well, I used to do lots of PC gaming, and I really did enjoy it. Far better control of the game, and more to offer,
I did end up buying an xbox360 as well though. Mainly because there were some more games offered (Though I've only bought one), compared to PC.
The price of games (Here at least) is actually quite close. Most big name games (CoD, Halo etc) run for $50 -$60. That's generally the same for PC, 360, and PS3.
There are some games that cost a little less when buying for the PC though, but not many anymore.

They both have their own pros and cons though.
As for me, I do prefer PC over xbox.

I think there's more to release order than that, Stux, though it factor in. The market for people who will buy a game on a console AND PC is relatively small. Piracy and copyright play a larger role in why developers are reluctant put games out on the PC at the same time as on console.

And, yes, there is the "exclusive" situation, where a manufacturer will buy out a developer or get exclusive rights to a game. Unfortunately, in the current set up, console makers are forced to compete with each other in this fashion (I am not a fan of platform exclusives, for any form of media on any platform).

I wasn't making a case for consoles being better, just explaining why they are more popular.

The ideal future would be one in which console manufacturers looked at their business like Amazon look at Kindle. They have two parts to the Kindle business; one part is responsible for the hardware, and have the goal of selling as many Kindle Readers as possible. The other part is responsible for the platform, and has the goal of selling as many books as possible. Consequently, the Kindle platform is available on just about every capable device on the market.

If Xbox Live and PlayStation Network were to become a multi-device platform, rather than a proprietary service that comes with specific hardware, issues like release dates and device exclusivity would be less of an issue.

Before anyone points them out, I don't count PlayStation Network on PSP and PS3, or Xbox Live on Xbox 360 and Windows Phone 7, because it's still locked, and it's not the same gaming experience on each device. What Sony are doing with the Xperia Play is much more interesting but, having had a play with one, I don't think Sony's heart is really in it.

I agree that MC should not go on xbox, it should be reason for people to play on PC. But what I think is a reason why people play on consoles is because they are cheaper. For PC you usually need a good graphics card, motherboard etc. to play a lot of the new games well and for them to look good.
While for console you just need the console, the game and a TV.

Piracy and copyright play a larger role in why developers are reluctant put games out on the PC at the same time as on console.

beagrie

Some developers state its because of Piracy, but imo its a load of rubbish. Piracy exists with both PC's and consoles. The only difference is that they can set honey traps for people downloading PC games (So they can get an idea of how many people download a torrent).

Id be willing to bet that companies loose more money because of publishers like Ubisoft and there Permanent Internet Connection crap rather than to any negative effect caused by Pirates.

I wasn't making a case for consoles being better, just explaining why they are more popular.

beagrie

Where do you get your information that they are more popular? More people have a PC than a console(Most people who have consoles have a PC). So i don't see how anyone can state that Consoles are more popular when there are more PC's in the world (Im not saying either is more popular).

The reason why PC gaming is being put on the back-burner by so many game companies is a financial one.

The game developers could develop a game for the PC, then have to support a myriad of hardware platforms, controllers and control setups, and operating systems. This dramatically increases their tech support and development costs. Or, they can develop for a specific set of hardware in a console and have a very fixed and (mostly) known tech support and development cost. Plus, they get an automatic piracy deterrent since most people don't want to hardware-modify their consoles, and they get support of well established online networks, so they don't have to deal with managing their own online servers.

In short, even with a smaller potential buying audience on the console, they can expect a higher revenue stream per investment dollar, and the investment costs are pretty well known.

Its gaming at its lowest common denominator. A corporation's version of "fun".

Where do you get your information that they are more popular? More people have a PC than a console(Most people who have consoles have a PC). So i don't see how anyone can state that Consoles are more popular when there are more PC's in the world (Im not saying either is more popular).

Stucuk

PC Games sales have been declining year over year since 2001 (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PC_gaming), the most recent sales figures I could easily find being 2008, which tallied up at $701 million for the US (sales don't include in-game purchases). In contrast, GTA IV, which came out in 2008, made $500 million in its first week (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV) on consoles alone, and that wasn't the only big name console title to come out in 2008 (I'm not tallying them all up for the sake of this argument).

Yes, most people who own a console probably have a PC, but you're assuming all of those PC's are capable of playing big name titles. I wouldn't want to play Minecraft on my parents netbook, let alone Modern Warfare 2.

i'd be wary of assuming developers have to spend extra time supporting hardware on pc's as that's what the likes of DirectX is supposed to alleviate. Think of it as an API that devs can tap into without the need for hard coding in all support. the exception would be for elitist hardware, like for example racing wheels as these come in many shapes and sizes. Generally though what's in your pc box rather than outside will almost certainly be tapped into through DirectX.

anyway moving back to should minecraft be on xbox... i think YES, it should! because right now i'm without a PC (it blew up yesterday) and am not satisfied with fortresscraft while waiting for new pc components to arrive in the post.

There is one more valid point though... for Notch to release on Xbox, he'd have to recode it all in C# or C++ so then, chances are the pc version will also be migrated from java. Thus Minecraft in generally will be faster, more efficient and actually require LESS pc hardware to run.

i'd be wary of assuming developers have to spend extra time supporting hardware on pc's as that's what the likes of DirectX is supposed to alleviate......

diablothe2nd

In theory, yes, directx should resolve a lot of input issues, however, in reality, there is still extra costs associated with the PC controller versus the console.

In the PC versions of games, you have a screen to select what button on the keyboard does what function in the game, as well as the mouse setup and sensitivity settings. Those screens look trivial on the surface (or should, if the programmer does his job correctly) but it involves hundreds of programming hours and Q/A testing to get it right. The Xbox controller setup is dead simple and the code re-used from the Xbox developers kit.

Also keep in mind, on the Xbox, you have one video card chip, one sound chipset, one usb chipset, etc, to deal with. On a PC, you never know what you will run into with compatibility issues. I remember a game having patches specifically for nVidia cards when using on an SIS based motherboard, if the customer had a specific controller type. Another game had problems with the hardware T&L registers on certain video cards if the user had not updated their video card driver. The game would show up fine till you hit one of the lighting special effects, then would show a black screen. You just don't get that kind of issue when coding for consoles.

Aside from the programming costs, the tech support issue I was specifically referring to was in regards to customer complaints/calls. A PC game that is perfectly coded will still get a ton of calls in order to "fix" things that are not even the fault of the game, yet the company has to pay people to answer the phones and reply to the complaints. I worked a tech support desk for a little over 5 years, and I have had people contact us just because they couldn't figure out where the power button was. For Xbox games, the first level calls go to Microsoft (or their outsourced call centers, specifically) and the game developer does not have to deal with it.

There is one more valid point though... for Notch to release on Xbox, he'd have to recode it all in C# or C++ so then, chances are the pc version will also be migrated from java. Thus Minecraft in generally will be faster, more efficient and actually require LESS pc hardware to run.

diablothe2nd

This sounds great, though the real-world speedup is less than what you think. The time it takes a java app to compile source code on today's hardware is incredibly short... hardly noticeable. One the source code is converted to bytecode (or machine language) by the JVM, its speed of execution is on a par with most pre-compiled C languages. Since the Java Virtual Machine compiles the code just prior to execution (JIT compiling) there can be a short delay in launching the app, but once compiled and launched, today's hardware can usually more than keep up with the code.

The majority of the slowdowns on the server, I feel, are caused by sloppy plug-in API coding (bukkit) causing either memory leaks or drive thrashing. Plain vanilla servers don't seem to have the issues we are having.

The game developers could develop a game for the PC, then have to support a myriad of hardware platforms, controllers and control setups, and operating systems.

minecraftblock0

They don't. Most games do not have controller support because most games are not flight simulators. Its only games like Flight Simulators where a Joystick is needed. For every other game a mouse and keyboard is perfectly fine.

They also only need to support one OS, Windows. More devs are supporting Linux and Macs but most people use Windows.

When it comes to hardware they don't need to do anything extra to support hardware. Like D2 said, Direct X and OpenGL are designed to be platforms to bridge the gap between software and your graphics card.

Most companies don't try to make there game compatible with as much graphics cards as possible. They take the simpler route and just pick a minimum graphics card and stick to it.

In the PC versions of games, you have a screen to select what button on the keyboard does what function in the game, as well as the mouse setup and sensitivity settings. Those screens look trivial on the surface (or should, if the programmer does his job correctly) but it involves hundreds of programming hours and Q/A testing to get it right. The Xbox controller setup is dead simple and the code re-used from the Xbox developers kit.

minecraftblock0

It doesn't take ages to create a screen like that. 99% of your job is done when you make the menu system. Making the bit that stores what key does what is simple to code. It doesn't take hundreds of hours for doing just the parts related to the controller settings.

A PC game that is perfectly coded will still get a ton of calls in order to "fix" things that are not even the fault of the game, yet the company has to pay people to answer the phones and reply to the complaints.

minecraftblock0

Nope. They just put a crap support system on a website which tells you nothing, which no staff member ever looks at.

Another game had problems with the hardware T&L registers on certain video cards if the user had not updated their video card driver. The game would show up fine till you hit one of the lighting special effects, then would show a black screen. You just don't get that kind of issue when coding for consoles.

minecraftblock0

You are always going to have bugs created by NVidia/ATI. Each time you update your graphics card drivers you can run into that problem if they have screwed up there drivers. This however doesn't cost developers or publishers any extra money, and it doesn't happen alot. All companies have a PR Guy who handles PR. So they are not going to be hiring extra people.

@Beagrie: Retail Sales figures are not a good comparison. PC Gaming has been driven online. Most Highstreet shops have a rubbish selection of PC Games, so each year less people buy PC games from the Highstreet and just buy online through places like Amazon, Steam, D2D, etc.

There are also games like WoW which make a bit of money. World of Warcraft: Cataclysm sold 3.3 million copies in the first 24 hours, which broke World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King's 2.8 million in 24 hours.

When it comes to PC's that can play Minecraft. Mine was made in 2004. Minecraft has a decent framerate even on my old hardware. So you don't need an Elite Modern PC.

GeForce 8's(Which are becoming the minimum requirement for new games, GeForce 6's use to hold that title) were released in 2007, so for modern games you just need a 4 year old PC. There are still alot of recent games that only need a GeForce 6, which was released in 2004(7 years ago).

As an example Duke Nukem Forever(Which is as modern as you can get since its not even out yet) needs a GeForce 7600 (March 2006).