Minecraft on Xbox
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 08:22AMYeah, so, THIS happened; http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/90-minecraft-coming-to-xbox-kinect-this-winter/
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 08:23AM
Unimpressed. Why the hell would anyone play MC on XBox rather than on PC?
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 08:35AM
Some people don't play pc games at all.
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 08:45AM
I personally look forward to it. A chance to show my friends on the XBOX why Fortress Craft sucks so hard.
Jighello, Tue Jun 07 2011, 09:07AM
MC with a control pad? Ewww...
Oh, Beag, I've made your trap in SP:
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 10:25AM
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.
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 10:34AM
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).
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 10:53AM
Stucuk
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).
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.
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 10:54AM
Ignore my typos; I'm using Swype on my Android.
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 11:01AM
I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 11:04AM
Kahr
I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.
You're using Swype as well?
dubien, Tue Jun 07 2011, 12:23PM
Oh god.... WHY?
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 12:40PM
I have no idea what that is.
Kahr
I pretty much agree with everything beagrie said. Not going to bother repeating it.
You're using Swype as well?
beagrie
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 12:41PM
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.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
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.
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 12:59PM
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.
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 03:48PM
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.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
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.
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.a cheap pc or ipad, which they will already own, therefore the investment of a decent pc becomes ADDITIONAL to their existing device
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.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
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).
SampleName, Tue Jun 07 2011, 05:42PM
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.
beagrie, Tue Jun 07 2011, 06:43PM
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.
msski, Tue Jun 07 2011, 08:16PM
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.
, Tue Jun 07 2011, 11:18PM
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).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
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.
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).I wasn't making a case for consoles being better, just explaining why they are more popular.
beagrie
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 02:05AM
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".
beagrie, Wed Jun 08 2011, 03:45AM
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.
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 08:09AM
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.
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 08:47AM
diablothe2nd
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......
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.
diablothe2nd
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.
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.
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 11:24AM
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.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 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.
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.minecraftblock0
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.
Nope. They just put a crap support system on a website which tells you nothing, which no staff member ever looks at.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
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.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
@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).
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 12:34PM
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
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 02:48PM
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.
, Wed Jun 08 2011, 05:38PM
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.
beagrie, Thu Jun 09 2011, 03:17AM
Stucuk
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.
Then those companies go out of business because their games don't play BECAUSE;
Stucuk
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.
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.
Stucuk
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.
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.
Stucuk
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).
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.
Stucuk
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).
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.
, Thu Jun 09 2011, 09:19AM
Yeah, but who wants to run Dead Space 2 on any machine? The game is horrible.beagrie
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, Thu Jun 09 2011, 09:27AM
Yeah, but who wants to run Dead Space 2 on any machine? The game is horrible.beagrie
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.
Kahr
lol, I think you're missing the point, Car.
, Thu Jun 09 2011, 10:46AM
You could have used an example not as horrible though.beagrie
lol, I think you're missing the point, Car.
, Thu Jun 09 2011, 11:35AM
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)?Then those companies go out of business because their games don't play
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.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
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.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
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.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
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).
Deleted-User-1415, Thu Jun 09 2011, 02:42PM
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?!
, Thu Jun 09 2011, 03:44PM
DavH27
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?!
Depends on how its done. If it has some kind of negative (Such as getting more griefers into servers) then it can be bad.
, Thu Jun 09 2011, 06:46PM
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.Stucuk
Depends on how its done. If it has some kind of negative (Such as getting more griefers into servers) then it can be bad.
BRooNiE, Thu Jun 09 2011, 07:00PM
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.
beagrie, Thu Jun 09 2011, 08:39PM
Stucuk
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)?
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.
Stucuk
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.
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.
Stucuk
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.
Which doesn't dispute my point. Most consumers buy cheap computers with onboard graphics.
BRooNiE
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.
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.
, Fri Jun 10 2011, 12:00AM
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.This point is valid, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
beagrie
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).
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.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
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).
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.Which doesn't dispute my point. Most consumers buy cheap computers with onboard graphics.
beagrie
Intel ones may work decently with Direct X games. OpenGL however didn't get Intels full attention.
beagrie, Fri Jun 10 2011, 08:45AM
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.
, Fri Jun 10 2011, 08:46AM
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.
Deleted-User-1415, Fri Jun 10 2011, 11:45AM
Not 99.9999% certain?
, Fri Jun 10 2011, 11:59AM
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.beagrie
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.
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.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
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.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
beagrie, Fri Jun 10 2011, 12:34PM
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.
, Fri Jun 10 2011, 03:05PM
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.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
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.
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.They are the definitive stats.
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.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
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.Perhaps it was you asking me if I do any "real gaming," you pompous prat.
beagrie
P.S Sticks and Stones.
beagrie, Fri Jun 10 2011, 04:27PM
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.
BRooNiE, Fri Jun 10 2011, 04:38PM
Closing this thread.