Why developers kill the pc versions?

So tell me, why the pc versions of many games are so bad... Eg gta iv... id never pay for that game i swear the god.... its garbage this game should be free as a beta version... i mean screw the perfomance i can run the game at the highest settings but no textures:cry:.. how playable is that? or dead space... or the low amount of pc exclusives... or games released to pc and not only to x360 and ps3.. why the quality of those games is so freaking terrible... i mean a few years ago.. you stick the disc in and isntall .....magially the game works,,:shock: No bugs no crashes no drm no securom not insert the orignal disc, while the original disc is inserted :shock:.... No idiotic ports like gta iv!

I think the quality of pc games is descenting painfully badly... why that happens? Are they trying to make us buy a console? PlZ someon tell me that that crap will stop and we gonna play PC games in our PC and not a game that looks like a console port.... ps windows live is like xbox live....boooooo!

I wanna ask you my fellow pc gamers, is there any possibility that pc gaming will rise again... because i feel that in a few years they will proffesionaly assasinate the pc gaming and bill gates will shake hands with his newest xbox... and ill just sit in my pc watching the press confrenece in youtube and feel like those guys in the movies that are hiding and say... its conspiracy i know it...:?

So what am saying is in my opinion the facts made me worry about the future and the quality of pc gaming.

What i want is your thoughts on that matter...come one people we are all thinking of it and we experienced the facts that pc games are going from bad to worse....dont start about bad ports and piracy and drm... everyone i know owning consoles is pirating every game.... everyone expect ps3 owners.

So the thing is no matter if they are ports or not, most games look like consoles games or are bad ports from consoles... thank god we got crysis....

Your thoughts about the future.. plz someone tell me it will stop and we gonna play pc games with quality again...

Money

Next question

Money

Next question

I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :Dzenarblade

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :DMOCHIRON_MAN

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :DHellboard

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

Oh yes, Dead Space is doing great on PC.

I don't think it's as much the fault of the developers, as the publishers. If the publisher tells a dev that game X has to be ported to PC but don't give the devs enough money or time to make a reasonable port, is it any wonder that some ports turn out to be unoptimised and buggy? Some developers, such as Bioware, have shown that given a decent amount of time and effort, they can produce a great port (as in KoTOR) with PC-centric interface and some additional content. Unfortunately, I don't think many devs are given that opportunity.

Multi-platform development is the way ahead for many devs/publishers because they cannot justify large budgets on PC only titles that generally do not sell as well as their console counterparts. There are exceptions, of course, from devs like Valve who are still largely pc-centric, and some great games coming from relatively unknown devs (like CD Projekt and GSC Gameworld), but quality can be an issue with such titles because they may not have access to rigorous Q&A etc. that meets the standards of western devs.

Piracy is the big bug-bear of the industry at the moment, and rightly so, because they need to get X amount of sales to make a profit due to larger budgets (on AAA titles). Basically they need to sell more units to break even these days, and with tighter deadlines quality is bound to suffer as a result. Which is why we've seen so many games pushed out the door early (some in practically beta state) to get holiday sales, for example, and then get patched later.

Of course it's all about maximising profits - that's the main reason why they make games in the first place, to make money. It's a business, like any other. Unfortunately they're just cutting too many corners these days.

Actually the two games mentioned as evidence in the OP are, while prone to some as yet unpatched bugs, prime examples of how good PC gaming still is. GTA IV runs poorly only on older computers and is hands down the best GTA game to date. Sure the RSC/GFW stuff is a pain. But it's all bypassable. I might note that GTA IV on medium on latest hardware is better by a long shot over how it looked and played on the XBox360 which had some serious perfomance issues with the game itself. And while I still find the viewing perspective of Dead Space an annoyance, the gameplay and story is rather good, no major bugs.

So what's the problem?WDT-BlackKat

that you dont know what you are talking about thats the problem.... plz gta iv runs terribly in 800 gt or 8600 gt while 8600 gt is reccomende video card as for 9600 gso.. no lag but almost all textures are missing!

[QUOTE="Hellboard"][QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

MOCHIRON_MAN

Oh yes, Dead Space is doing great on PC.

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"][QUOTE="Hellboard"] Apart from that drm and anti piracy methods are a pain in the ass, and everyone and crack them and play online... or get the "you are a pirate insert the original dvd while its in the drive" So the piracy is BULLOCKS As for optimization, this is what consoles are based on... bad optimization bad graphics on consoles... i never seen a game that is available in pc and consoles at the same time and has bad graphics on consoles, but at the same time it has bad graphics and high requirements in pc.... i never seen a game with bad graphics on consoles that has low requirements in pc.... Ohh and dead space is extremely well optimized for pc.. no more hating EA:)Hellboard

Oh yes, Dead Space is doing great on PC.

Nope. I meant it. I really want to try it on PC. before I try it on PS3.

I don't think it's as much the fault of the developers, as the publishers. If the publisher tells a dev that game X has to be ported to PC but don't give the devs enough money or time to make a reasonable port, is it any wonder that some ports turn out to be unoptimised and buggy? Some developers, such as Bioware, have shown that given a decent amount of time and effort, they can produce a great port (as in KoTOR) with PC-centric interface and some additional content. Unfortunately, I don't think many devs are given that opportunity.

Multi-platform development is the way ahead for many devs/publishers because they cannot justify large budgets on PC only titles that generally do not sell as well as their console counterparts. There are exceptions, of course, from devs like Valve who are still largely pc-centric, and some great games coming from relatively unknown devs (like CD Projekt and GSC Gameworld), but quality can be an issue with such titles because they may not have access to rigorous Q&A etc. that meets the standards of western devs.

Piracy is the big bug-bear of the industry at the moment, and rightly so, because they need to get X amount of sales to make a profit due to larger budgets (on AAA titles). Basically they need to sell more units to break even these days, and with tighter deadlines quality is bound to suffer as a result. Which is why we've seen so many games pushed out the door early (some in practically beta state) to get holiday sales, for example, and then get patched later.

Of course it's all about maximising profits - that's the main reason why they make games in the first place, to make money. It's a business, like any other. Unfortunately they're just cutting too many corners these days.

RobertBowen

Money and piracy.dinuattila

[QUOTE="RobertBowen"]

I don't think it's as much the fault of the developers, as the publishers. If the publisher tells a dev that game X has to be ported to PC but don't give the devs enough money or time to make a reasonable port, is it any wonder that some ports turn out to be unoptimised and buggy? Some developers, such as Bioware, have shown that given a decent amount of time and effort, they can produce a great port (as in KoTOR) with PC-centric interface and some additional content. Unfortunately, I don't think many devs are given that opportunity.

Multi-platform development is the way ahead for many devs/publishers because they cannot justify large budgets on PC only titles that generally do not sell as well as their console counterparts. There are exceptions, of course, from devs like Valve who are still largely pc-centric, and some great games coming from relatively unknown devs (like CD Projekt and GSC Gameworld), but quality can be an issue with such titles because they may not have access to rigorous Q&A etc. that meets the standards of western devs.

Piracy is the big bug-bear of the industry at the moment, and rightly so, because they need to get X amount of sales to make a profit due to larger budgets (on AAA titles). Basically they need to sell more units to break even these days, and with tighter deadlines quality is bound to suffer as a result. Which is why we've seen so many games pushed out the door early (some in practically beta state) to get holiday sales, for example, and then get patched later.

Of course it's all about maximising profits - that's the main reason why they make games in the first place, to make money. It's a business, like any other. Unfortunately they're just cutting too many corners these days.

Hellboard

[QUOTE="Hellboard"][QUOTE="RobertBowen"]

I don't think it's as much the fault of the developers, as the publishers. If the publisher tells a dev that game X has to be ported to PC but don't give the devs enough money or time to make a reasonable port, is it any wonder that some ports turn out to be unoptimised and buggy? Some developers, such as Bioware, have shown that given a decent amount of time and effort, they can produce a great port (as in KoTOR) with PC-centric interface and some additional content. Unfortunately, I don't think many devs are given that opportunity.

Multi-platform development is the way ahead for many devs/publishers because they cannot justify large budgets on PC only titles that generally do not sell as well as their console counterparts. There are exceptions, of course, from devs like Valve who are still largely pc-centric, and some great games coming from relatively unknown devs (like CD Projekt and GSC Gameworld), but quality can be an issue with such titles because they may not have access to rigorous Q&A etc. that meets the standards of western devs.

Piracy is the big bug-bear of the industry at the moment, and rightly so, because they need to get X amount of sales to make a profit due to larger budgets (on AAA titles). Basically they need to sell more units to break even these days, and with tighter deadlines quality is bound to suffer as a result. Which is why we've seen so many games pushed out the door early (some in practically beta state) to get holiday sales, for example, and then get patched later.

Of course it's all about maximising profits - that's the main reason why they make games in the first place, to make money. It's a business, like any other. Unfortunately they're just cutting too many corners these days.

RobertBowen

[QUOTE="dinuattila"]Money and piracy.Hellboard

That is right,but lets see....PS 3 games can't be pirated,thats good :D,even if the X360 games can be pirated,Microsoft has its precious Live and people choose to play on Live rather than not :P.Wish we could do something about piracy on the PC,than i am pretty sure devs wouldn't kill the PC version of the games(look at GTA 4....).And relating to your question what the PC did to this world?...the PC was the very first to be created,i think :D.Pretty old by now :P

Peace

[QUOTE="Hellboard"][QUOTE="dinuattila"]Money and piracy.dinuattila

That is right,but lets see....PS 3 games can't be pirated,thats good :D,even if the X360 games can be pirated,Microsoft has its precious Live and people choose to play on Live rather than not :P.Wish we could do something about piracy on the PC,than i am pretty sure devs wouldn't kill the PC version of the games(look at GTA 4....).And relating to your question what the PC did to this world?...the PC was the very first to be created,i think :D.Pretty old by now :P

Peace

[QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"]Actually the two games mentioned as evidence in the OP are, while prone to some as yet unpatched bugs, prime examples of how good PC gaming still is. GTA IV runs poorly only on older computers and is hands down the best GTA game to date. Sure the RSC/GFW stuff is a pain. But it's all bypassable. I might note that GTA IV on medium on latest hardware is better by a long shot over how it looked and played on the XBox360 which had some serious perfomance issues with the game itself. And while I still find the viewing perspective of Dead Space an annoyance, the gameplay and story is rather good, no major bugs.

So what's the problem?Hellboard

that you dont know what you are talking about thats the problem.... plz gta iv runs terribly in 800 gt or 8600 gt while 8600 gt is reccomende video card as for 9600 gso.. no lag but almost all textures are missing!

[QUOTE="Hellboard"]

[QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"]Actually the two games mentioned as evidence in the OP are, while prone to some as yet unpatched bugs, prime examples of how good PC gaming still is. GTA IV runs poorly only on older computers and is hands down the best GTA game to date. Sure the RSC/GFW stuff is a pain. But it's all bypassable. I might note that GTA IV on medium on latest hardware is better by a long shot over how it looked and played on the XBox360 which had some serious perfomance issues with the game itself. And while I still find the viewing perspective of Dead Space an annoyance, the gameplay and story is rather good, no major bugs.

So what's the problem?WDT-BlackKat

that you dont know what you are talking about thats the problem.... plz gta iv runs terribly in 800 gt or 8600 gt while 8600 gt is reccomende video card as for 9600 gso.. no lag but almost all textures are missing!

[QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"][QUOTE="Hellboard"]

that you dont know what you are talking about thats the problem.... plz gta iv runs terribly in 800 gt or 8600 gt while 8600 gt is reccomende video card as for 9600 gso.. no lag but almost all textures are missing!

Hellboard

You're forgetting two things:

The XBOX360 had serious performance issues with GTA IV.

Playing the game on medium is still visually better looking than the console versions (presuming you're turning texture settings to medium in order to allow other things to be turned up such as draw distance and resolution).

WOW you are right brother more time means more expenses, however how stalker was under that long time in development and the witcher still ahs bugs or crashes... i had some... Or how they release games like boiling point and that game has quality assurance...Hellboard

Taking STALKER as an example:

That game was in development hell for a long time, and did not initially have a publisher. I don't know how they were financed, but the developer was too ambitious with the number of features they wanted to put in their game, and probably spread themselves too thin trying to get it all done. When they did get a publisher, they were put on a better schedule and some of the things they wanted to do were cut. In that case, the publisher actually helped to get them back on track and focused on the core gameplay, and trimmed off some of the excess fat. Yes, the game was still buggy on release, because the publisher wanted to get the game out there after such a long production time.

[QUOTE="Hellboard"][QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"] So get a better video card. A cheap as hell GTX 260 runs the game very well.WDT-BlackKat

You're forgetting two things:

The XBOX360 had serious performance issues with GTA IV.

Playing the game on medium is still visually better looking than the console versions (presuming you're turning texture settings to medium in order to allow other things to be turned up such as draw distance and resolution).

[QUOTE="Hellboard"]WOW you are right brother more time means more expenses, however how stalker was under that long time in development and the witcher still ahs bugs or crashes... i had some... Or how they release games like boiling point and that game has quality assurance...RobertBowen

Taking STALKER as an example:

That game was in development hell for a long time, and did not initially have a publisher. I don't know how they were financed, but the developer was too ambitious with the number of features they wanted to put in their game, and probably spread themselves too thin trying to get it all done. When they did get a publisher, they were put on a better schedule and some of the things they wanted to do were cut. In that case, the publisher actually helped to get them back on track and focused on the core gameplay, and trimmed off some of the excess fat. Yes, the game was still buggy on release, because the publisher wanted to get the game out there after such a long production time.

Money

Next question

Kaelken

this pretty much hits it on the nose.

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :DMOCHIRON_MAN

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

Okay this might be a little long winded but it's an important point here.

All the consoles are built down to a budget and all PC gamers know if they budget there rig not to expect maxing out there graphics.

Due to the fact that all console technology is based off existing pc technology (what do you think games are made on), I know that even the low end Core 2 Duos will be faster than the PS3's processor. None of Intel's Core 2's are base clocked at 4.2, so I can easily say without checking the PS3 is not clocked at 6.1 (clock speeds are not multiplied by cores; they're just two processors running at the same speed), but modern day pc gaming isn't as processor based as a few years ago and puts more stress on the graphics card than anything else.

This is because of the traditional PC gaming setup, which uses higher than HD resolutions, large textures and large amounts of anti-aliasing to provide the best experience while sat at a close distance to the screen.

PC gaming is the bleeding edge of gaming which makes it hard to develop for such widely varied hardware.

So to tie this all together; developers have gotten lazy, because it's easier to optimise a game for the set hardware of a consol. So my advice is if you want to play ports on a PC you'll need a High End system with some of the latest hardware.

PC games will always be miles ahead of the consol.

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :Dzanelli

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

Okay this might be a little long winded but it's an important point here.

All the consoles are built down to a budget and all PC gamers know if they budget there rig not to expect maxing out there graphics.

Due to the fact that all console technology is based off existing pc technology (what do you think games are made on), I know that even the low end Core 2 Duos will be faster than the PS3's processor. None of Intel's Core 2's are base clocked at 4.2, so I can easily say without checking the PS3 is not clocked at 6.1 (clock speeds are not multiplied by cores; they're just two processors running at the same speed), but modern day pc gaming isn't as processor based as a few years ago and puts more stress on the graphics card than anything else.

This is because of the traditional PC gaming setup, which uses higher than HD resolutions, large textures and large amounts of anti-aliasing to provide the best experience while sat at a close distance to the screen.

PC gaming is the bleeding edge of gaming which makes it hard to develop for such widely varied hardware.

So to tie this all together; developers have gotten lazy, because it's easier to optimise a game for the set hardware of a consol. So my advice is if you want to play ports on a PC you'll need a High End system with some of the latest hardware.

PC games will always be miles ahead of the consol.

id say the scre the port eg in some cards you can run it on max but with no lag...the textures dissapear!

id say the scre the port eg in some cards you can run it on max but with no lag...the textures dissapear!

Hellboard

Erm are you typing with your feet?

I'll have to get GTAIV to see how it runs on my now aging 88gtx, other ports from this year like DMC4, Assassins Creed and Mass Effect, run perfectly on the higher settings, so I hope it's going to be the same.

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :Dzanelli

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

Okay this might be a little long winded but it's an important point here.

All the consoles are built down to a budget and all PC gamers know if they budget there rig not to expect maxing out there graphics.

Due to the fact that all console technology is based off existing pc technology (what do you think games are made on), I know that even the low end Core 2 Duos will be faster than the PS3's processor. None of Intel's Core 2's are base clocked at 4.2, so I can easily say without checking the PS3 is not clocked at 6.1 (clock speeds are not multiplied by cores; they're just two processors running at the same speed), but modern day pc gaming isn't as processor based as a few years ago and puts more stress on the graphics card than anything else.

This is because of the traditional PC gaming setup, which uses higher than HD resolutions, large textures and large amounts of anti-aliasing to provide the best experience while sat at a close distance to the screen.

PC gaming is the bleeding edge of gaming which makes it hard to develop for such widely varied hardware.

So to tie this all together; developers have gotten lazy, because it's easier to optimise a game for the set hardware of a consol. So my advice is if you want to play ports on a PC you'll need a High End system with some of the latest hardware.

PC games will always be miles ahead of the consol.

Right there people, right there; zaneli has the 100% true answer to this, that PC's can have millions of different compatible parts, and that game consoles have a couple compadible parts. with the millions of parts, and what not, compare to a few, which would people choose over the other? Probably the console, because its everything, in one package.

[QUOTE="RobertBowen"]They cannot allow a game to be in production for years unless they have the money to enable them to do that. Most devs have a finite budget to work with, and have to meet a deadline set by the publisher. Sometimes they are given more time (and games get delayed as a result), which is great for us as gamers because we get a more polished product. Unfortunately, many devs are not in this position and have to rush a game out of the door. Again, it comes right back to financing, and the people in control of the purse-strings are usually the publishers. I don't think you will find many devs who want to release a buggy unfinished game, but if the publisher tells them to release it, what choice do they have? They are under contract, after all, and if the budget has been used where is the extra money coming from to extend development?Makari

Well, it still all comes back to finance. I talked about publishers because, generally, they are the ones holding the purse strings. Of course there are devs trying to find other sources of funding on their own and running into difficulties, but it still largely comes down to cashflow at the end of the day. There will be exceptions as well, like 3Drealms, who have been in development hell for the past ten years, which must be some kind of a record. Blizzard, of course, is basically printing their own money with WOW.

[QUOTE="Hellboard"]

id say the scre the port eg in some cards you can run it on max but with no lag...the textures dissapear!

zanelli

Erm are you typing with your feet?

I'll have to get GTAIV to see how it runs on my now aging 88gtx, other ports from this year like DMC4, Assassins Creed and Mass Effect, run perfectly on the higher settings, so I hope it's going to be the same.

[QUOTE="zanelli"][QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

MOCHIRON_MAN

Okay this might be a little long winded but it's an important point here.

All the consoles are built down to a budget and all PC gamers know if they budget there rig not to expect maxing out there graphics.

Due to the fact that all console technology is based off existing pc technology (what do you think games are made on), I know that even the low end Core 2 Duos will be faster than the PS3's processor. None of Intel's Core 2's are base clocked at 4.2, so I can easily say without checking the PS3 is not clocked at 6.1 (clock speeds are not multiplied by cores; they're just two processors running at the same speed), but modern day pc gaming isn't as processor based as a few years ago and puts more stress on the graphics card than anything else.

This is because of the traditional PC gaming setup, which uses higher than HD resolutions, large textures and large amounts of anti-aliasing to provide the best experience while sat at a close distance to the screen.

PC gaming is the bleeding edge of gaming which makes it hard to develop for such widely varied hardware.

So to tie this all together; developers have gotten lazy, because it's easier to optimise a game for the set hardware of a consol. So my advice is if you want to play ports on a PC you'll need a High End system with some of the latest hardware.

PC games will always be miles ahead of the consol.

Right there people, right there; zaneli has the 100% true answer to this, that PC's can have millions of different compatible parts, and that game consoles have a couple compadible parts. with the millions of parts, and what not, compare to a few, which would people choose over the other? Probably the console, because its everything, in one package.

They can't program a decent game.ShotGunBunny

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="RobertBowen"]They cannot allow a game to be in production for years unless they have the money to enable them to do that. Most devs have a finite budget to work with, and have to meet a deadline set by the publisher. Sometimes they are given more time (and games get delayed as a result), which is great for us as gamers because we get a more polished product. Unfortunately, many devs are not in this position and have to rush a game out of the door. Again, it comes right back to financing, and the people in control of the purse-strings are usually the publishers. I don't think you will find many devs who want to release a buggy unfinished game, but if the publisher tells them to release it, what choice do they have? They are under contract, after all, and if the budget has been used where is the extra money coming from to extend development?RobertBowen

Well, it still all comes back to finance. I talked about publishers because, generally, they are the ones holding the purse strings. Of course there are devs trying to find other sources of funding on their own and running into difficulties, but it still largely comes down to cashflow at the end of the day. There will be exceptions as well, like 3Drealms, who have been in development hell for the past ten years, which must be some kind of a record. Blizzard, of course, is basically printing their own money with WOW.

I thnk this is a terrible game, that feels like a port. Looks good I guess. BUt it is definetly a console game before PC. Thas why its so boring.

If you look in the credits of PC ports, you'll notice that only one or two people actually worked on porting the game. With teams that small, it's no wonder that we have to be satisfied with half-assed ports.kodex1717

I thnk this is a terrible game, that feels like a port. Looks good I guess. BUt it is definetly a console game before PC. Thas why its so boring.

xipotec

It revolves around 2 problems which are subsequently one in the same.

One being the fact that when making a PC game you have to take a lot more variables into consideration. Hardware, drivers, compatibility etc etc etc.

The sweet spot for PC developed games is tiny in comparison to a console version where the applicable hardware is the same and there arent nearly as many concerns with compatibility or finicky drivers and such.

The second problem relates to the profit to effort ratio for a PC version of any given game. The PC version will usually be 20% cheaper than its console counterpart. With this considered, coupled with the above mentioned problem, there is very little incentive to polish up the PC version when it will take more time and in the end sell for less money than the console version of the same game.

Its business in its purest form. Whatever will net them the most profit for the least amount of effort will ultimately get the most attention.