Stupid, stupid, stupid...
Thats really all I have to say on the subject other than I own both ^^
I just dont want all those haters on the server. You know what I mean?
well if you have ever been on xbox matchmaking game, you get people swearing and yelling an hating on each other. I just dont think we need that on the server, but hey, thats just my 2 cents

I don't know if there will be a cross compatibility between the two, being able to play on the same server, that is.... on one hand you have the walled garden of MS trying to nickle and dime you for every thing you do on their "live" network, and on the other hand you have the wild free open PC world. If MS allowed both to co-exist on the same server, the Xbox players might realize its cheaper (by a LOT) playing multiplayer games on the PC.

I personally would like to have minecraft for both my XBox 360 and pc. I enjoy fps games on them both. But i do agree that you shouldn't be able to play on pc servers on the 360 cause a lot of XBox players are immature.

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.

Stucuk

Then those companies go out of business because their games don't play BECAUSE;

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.

Stucuk

@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.

Stucuk

I said those sales figures didn't include IN-GAME sales. They do include ONLINE sales, and, anyway, digital sales only overtook retail this year. Before that, high street sales were on top.

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.

Stucuk

If you're trying to say that an seven year old PC can run Dead Space 2 as smoothly and sweetly as a PS3, you're lying. If you're trying to say a seven year old PC can run Minecraft, I'm not disagreeing, though I fail to see what it has to do with this argument.

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).

Stucuk

Now find me a sales figure that shows how many people bought a PC last year with a GeForce anything in it, versus an onboard graphics chipset. Most people don't buy decent PC's! They buy netbooks and Mac Mini's and iPads. GeForce graphics cards don't come as standard in 90% of ready-built PC's these days, let alone four 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).

Stucuk

Duke Nukem has been in development for over a decade, as I'm sure you're aware, by 3D Realms. Gearbox took over development last year and, suddenly, it's ready for release?! That game is three or four years old at best. The graphics look dated, the gameplay looks average, it's been put out now so that it's done and they can start a new Duke Nukem game from scratch.

Finally, I repeat, I am not saying people SHOULD be playing games on consoles over PC's (though I prefer it that way), I am saying people DO play games on consoles over PC's. That's just the way the market is. As successful as games like WoW are, they don't come close to PC sales, and they don't care, because they make their money on subscriptions.

If you're trying to say that an seven year old PC can run Dead Space 2 as smoothly and sweetly as a PS3, you're lying. If you're trying to say a seven year old PC can run Minecraft, I'm not disagreeing, though I fail to see what it has to do with this argument.

beagrie

Yeah, but who wants to run Dead Space 2 on any machine? The game is horrible.

If you're trying to say that an seven year old PC can run Dead Space 2 as smoothly and sweetly as a PS3, you're lying. If you're trying to say a seven year old PC can run Minecraft, I'm not disagreeing, though I fail to see what it has to do with this argument.

beagrie

Yeah, but who wants to run Dead Space 2 on any machine? The game is horrible.

Kahr

lol, I think you're missing the point, Car.

lol, I think you're missing the point, Car.

beagrie

You could have used an example not as horrible though.

Then those companies go out of business because their games don't play

beagrie

99% of games are not scalable and are only designed to run on a certain minimum Graphics Card and above. You are not going to tell me 99% of games don't work on PC's because of driver incompatibilities that don't effect most games and are not all that common(Except for when Vista came out and NVidia/ATI never made proper drivers for vista)?

I said those sales figures didn't include IN-GAME sales. They do include ONLINE sales, and, anyway, digital sales only overtook retail this year. Before that, high street sales were on top.

beagrie

They do not include ALL online sales. They are retail sales + some guesswork. Guesswork is not an accurate thing. If you were a person who shopped on the high street for PC games then you would have noticed that the transition from highstreet to online has been going on for years. If you ever looked in a Game Shop (As in the shop called "Game") for PC games, for at least 5 or more years there PC section has been shrinking year on year. You literally have to go online to actually buy most games because you can't find them in the high street(Im not talking about the games which make it into there chart section). Shops other than Game in the UK at least had never had as much of a selection. Now HMV, PC World, etc and there small amount of PC games is challenging them.

Now find me a sales figure that shows how many people bought a PC last year with a GeForce anything in it, versus an onboard graphics chipset. Most people don't buy decent PC's! They buy netbooks and Mac Mini's and iPads. GeForce graphics cards don't come as standard in 90% of ready-built PC's these days, let alone four years ago.

beagrie

Onboard graphics are generally ATI/NVidia chips that are used in there graphics cards but which use the systems memory, etc instead of having dedicated memory. Intel crap has flooded the market in recent years, which people who just care about a cheap computer for general usage have bought.

Duke Nukem has been in development for over a decade, as I'm sure you're aware, by 3D Realms. Gearbox took over development last year and, suddenly, it's ready for release?! That game is three or four years old at best. The graphics look dated, the gameplay looks average, it's been put out now so that it's done and they can start a new Duke Nukem game from scratch.

beagrie

Looks like the Source Engine to me. Though im not sure. In any case it was an engine they either were working on at the time or one that they have used before.

Games companies only need 1 year to make the content for a game. Games take longer than that to make normally because they have to either write there own engine or they have to modify someone else's engine to have the features they need. If they don't need to do alot of modifying they then only need to do the actual contents which is generally either 1 or 2 years.

In any case its a modern game. You don't need to have the latest graphics for a game to be classed as modern. Torchlight 2 for example doesn't have the same Graphics as FarCry 3, yet its still a modern game.

FarCry 2(2008) imo doesn't have rubbish graphics and it needs a GeForce 680o(2004). Id imagine FarCry 3 would require a GeForce 8 or 9(2007-2008) but thats complete speculation.

Starcraft II(2010) needs a GeForce 6800(2004).

Settlers 7(2010) needs a GeForce 7900(2006).

Amnesia: The Dark Descent (2010) needs a GeForce 6(2004).

I don';t understand why so many people are up in arms all over the internet because their favourite game is getting more platform exposure...?

That is a good thing, surely?!

I don';t understand why so many people are up in arms all over the internet because their favourite game is getting more platform exposure...?

That is a good thing, surely?!

DavH27

Depends on how its done. If it has some kind of negative (Such as getting more griefers into servers) then it can be bad.

Depends on how its done. If it has some kind of negative (Such as getting more griefers into servers) then it can be bad.

Stucuk

Well, I highly doubt it's gonna be cross platform compatible, so I don't think we'll be seeing the XBox people on our server.

I highly doubt Xbox live will allow connection to PC platform servers, it'll probably be done p2p style between xbox players like other live-enabled games.

99% of games are not scalable and are only designed to run on a certain minimum Graphics Card and above. You are not going to tell me 99% of games don't work on PC's because of driver incompatibilities that don't effect most games and are not all that common(Except for when Vista came out and NVidia/ATI never made proper drivers for vista)?

Stucuk

It's not simply about power. As Block said, it's subtle differences in hardware that cause unforeseen problems with the game. It might be a bug that only occurs if somebody is running an ATI Radeon HD Mobility 3400 on Windows Vista while Skype is running in the background. This point is valid, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

They do not include ALL online sales. They are retail sales + some guesswork. Guesswork is not an accurate thing. If you were a person who shopped on the high street for PC games then you would have noticed that the transition from highstreet to online has been going on for years. If you ever looked in a Game Shop (As in the shop called "Game") for PC games, for at least 5 or more years there PC section has been shrinking year on year. You literally have to go online to actually buy most games because you can't find them in the high street(Im not talking about the games which make it into there chart section). Shops other than Game in the UK at least had never had as much of a selection. Now HMV, PC World, etc and there small amount of PC games is challenging them.

Stucuk

Firstly, the guesswork is not wildly inaccurate. Console sales outsell PC game sales by such a ridiculous margin that there can be no doubt about their dominance. If you want to make the argument that sales figures don't count smaller indie games that you can't get in store, then factor in all the XBLA, PSN, and other downloadable content you can get through the consoles.

Onboard graphics are generally ATI/NVidia chips that are used in there graphics cards but which use the systems memory, etc instead of having dedicated memory. Intel crap has flooded the market in recent years, which people who just care about a cheap computer for general usage have bought.

Stucuk

Which doesn't dispute my point. Most consumers buy cheap computers with onboard graphics.

I highly doubt Xbox live will allow connection to PC platform servers, it'll probably be done p2p style between xbox players like other live-enabled games.

BRooNiE

I totally agree. Not only because of the technical connection reasons, and the fact that Xbox historically don't do cross-platform multiplayer, but also because of the changes needed in game. For example, text chat on Xbox would be horrendous. Also voice chat is integrated, and Minecraft would need to play nice with that.

This point is valid, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

beagrie

Its not valid. Games companies do not spend extra money just to solve problems for a single graphics card, they just tell you to goto NVidia/ATI and complain to them. It has no effect on the developer/publisher unless it effects the majority of people.

So they do not need to waste time or money to solve a problem that is not there fault unless its a major game breaking problem that effects the majority of customers.

All companies work that way. Its why most people complain about the lack of patches games receive(There are alot of bugs that are serious but only effect some people that are never fixed in games because it doesn't happen to everyone).

If you want to make the argument that sales figures don't count smaller indie games that you can't get in store, then factor in all the XBLA, PSN, and other downloadable content you can get through the consoles.

beagrie

I never mentioned Indy games. There are lots of companies making games for PC's which have publishers. They are not all found in the "Chart" bits of a highstreet shop.

Online PC Sales are not accurate because of the fact that they don't include every online place that sells games. There is more than just Amazon that sells non-indy games. Quite a few developers also sell there games through there own online shop as well(I.E Bohemia Interactive, who make ARMA).

Which doesn't dispute my point. Most consumers buy cheap computers with onboard graphics.

beagrie

My point was a simple one. As long as its NVidia/ATI then the world doesn't end. Integrated Graphics use the same Chips as Dedicated, the only real difference is that it uses System Resources (Like your Ram) instead of dedicated resources. This does make them worse, but its not a show stopper.

Intel ones may work decently with Direct X games. OpenGL however didn't get Intels full attention.

OK, I'm not tackling this point by point again. Your argument against the problem of different hardware causing bug that need fixing in games seems to be "you're wrong," with no actual reason as to why.

If companies brought games out for the PC, and refused to fix bugs with hardware, they would go out of business. Or do you think all the bug fixes and patches that are constantly released for the bigger titles are a figment of every ones but your imagination.

Yes, a lot of games aren't on the shelf in the retail store, but, neither is the plethora of downloadable content that you can get through the console's online stores, so again, what's your point?

And my final thought on this topic, as you appear to have run out of arguments two or three posts ago, is thus;

Console games vastly outsell PC games in the current market. It's not a slight on PC gamers, it's a fact. One that be backed up by any evidence you wish.

This may change in the future, with things like Sandy Bridge and other similar technologies that bring the GPU and CPU together in one low power (electricity), extremely powerful (horse power) chip, that will ultimately bring the price of computer hardware down and the power up.

In reference to the cross platform multiplayer, Microsoft was looking to combine gaming on the pc with 360, did some trials and in all cases the console users got pwned (not surprisingly given that the pc users had a mouse and keyboard) so they scrapped the idea.

I'm 99.9998% certain it will not be cross platform mp for this very reason.

Not 99.9999% certain?

OK, I'm not tackling this point by point again. Your argument against the problem of different hardware causing bug that need fixing in games seems to be "you're wrong," with no actual reason as to why.

beagrie

I already said why. Did you read my post? Your original point was that bugs in things like NVidia/ATI drivers cause developers to spend extra money/time. This is wrong except for rare occasions. Its only if the majority of there customers are effected that they need to spend money tackling the problem and that doesn't happen often enough to claim it as a reason for developers having to spend more money or time.

If companies brought games out for the PC, and refused to fix bugs with hardware, they would go out of business. Or do you think all the bug fixes and patches that are constantly released for the bigger titles are a figment of every ones but your imagination.

beagrie

Do you do any real gaming? Loads of games are released buggy which only ever get 1-2 patches if your lucky with the rest of the bugs left in the game. When it comes to ATI and NVidia screwing up drivers developers/publishers tell people to downgrade there drivers to a version that worked. They will only do something more proactive if it is effecting the majority of there customers.

Yes, a lot of games aren't on the shelf in the retail store, but, neither is the plethora of downloadable content that you can get through the console's online stores, so again, what's your point?

beagrie

That your picking stats that give consoles an advantage because they have alot of retail sales where as PC's have alot of online sales. I am not talking about downloadable content for games but actual full games. Your even lumping every console into one bundle of stats instead of PC vs XBox, PC vs PS3, etc. So your artificially inflating the stats by combining different devices. People don't generally buy all consoles, most only have one console. The original question i made was why buy a console when you can buy a PC, not why buy all consoles when you can buy a PC. An XBox is a completely different machine from a PS3, just like a Mac is completely different from a PC.

My original post was not about bugs in nVidia/ATI driver/hardware. There are a million bugs that can occur in a program. Look at Minecraft. Notch might bring out 1.7 with a bug that causes a player to get 64 gold blocks from mining one dirt block, IF that player uses a feather to mine it and the block is at a precise coordinate in the map. The scope for bugs is unfathomable, which is why patches are released; developers can't hope to get them all in testing.

Now factor in hardware the multitude of different hardware. It's not the hardware developers responsibility to make their hardware work with every piece of software available, it works the other way around.

OK, so maybe most of gaming is on console, where they do release constant patches and fixes. If developers make no effort to fix bugs that their software has with the hardware, then that would go a long way to explaining why PC gaming is damn unpopular. Which it is, as has been shown in this thread.

I'm not "picking" stats, I'm using NPD figures. They are the definitive stats. You want to know what else is missing? Mobile gaming, which is also beating PC gaming hand over fist. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd make the argument that millions of people play Farmville on their PC everyday through Facebook. But I wouldn't care, because, as you can see, I've finally lost my patience with this thread.

Perhaps it was you asking me if I do any "real gaming," you pompous prat. Stop telling me these figures don't account for all the game sales, and show me some figures that do. Otherwise you're just pulling this crap out of your arse.

I'm done with this argument now. If you respond, I'll read it. But I'm not replying unless it's worth my time.

If developers make no effort to fix bugs that their software has with the hardware, then that would go a long way to explaining why PC gaming is damn unpopular. Which it is, as has been shown in this thread.

beagrie

Games use API's for interacting with hardware. Any problems are generally caused by the Drivers of that hardware. Its far more rare for it to be the games fault.

The whole point of Windows was so that developers no longer had to write there own code for Graphics, Audio, etc, they could instead use API's like Direct X, where the Graphics Card Manufacturers would create Drivers as the bridge between Direct X and the card.

Before Windows, every game for MS-Dos had to have code in it to support the hardware of the time. Which meant that if you had a different sound card to one that was supported then you may not get any sound.

So now you just make your game work with an API. If other companies screw up there drivers then there isn't always alot you could do even if you were paid by the publisher to fix it.

But like i have said, its not a problem that effects loads of games. In general ATI and NVidia(Which are the prime cause of these types of problems) do not screw up loads of games when they update there drivers. Even when they do you can roll back to a previous driver.

Oh, the XBox 360's hardware failure rate is interesting. I know its not related to bad codding. This shows a more grim rate as well as some stats on other consoles.

They are the definitive stats.

beagrie

Sorry if i don't have 100% confidence on Wikia's website or well any Wiki for being reliable. I have also yet to see you provide any sales figures for games sold for individual consoles(Or well any consoles) all you have shown is the NPD's retail + guesswork on PC game sales which were posted on Wikia.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd make the argument that millions of people play Farmville on their PC everyday through Facebook.

beagrie

Its not a reason why a developer would choose to develop for the PC over a console. Most facebook games are not going to have as many people that play them.

Perhaps it was you asking me if I do any "real gaming," you pompous prat.

beagrie

Well i don't see how anyone can't know that developers and publishers don't fix serious bugs and claim to be a real gamer. Its been going on for years and years. Publishers don't generally give developers money to fix all of the serious bugs in games(Developers can only fix things when they get paid for doing it). As long as a game runs okish for most people that is all they care about.

P.S Sticks and Stones.

I apologise for the name calling, but you seemed to be taking more and more personal offence at the fact (it is a fact) that console gaming is more popular than PC. We can argue all day about why PC gaming is better, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't.

This post is just apologise for the pompous prat part. I'm still done with this thread.

Closing this thread.