Why pc could have been but will not be the best system to game on.

Its not piracy but its that no companies give a sh** about it. Its the"hey we making this game, might aswell milk it a bit" system. With consoles like xbox and ps there are companies (ms and sony respectively) that benefit from the success of these consoles. Hence money is spent to create exclusives. Are exclusives good for gamers? no. Because you would need multiple consoles to access the whole collection of games. But on the other hand competition brings out the best in the competitors.

The thing with the pc is. Apart from blizzard and a few other companies with a fanbase and genre embedded in pc, no companies have any incentives to go pc.

Hence pc only has

a) delayed, watered down, we spent so long testing for all hardware excuse yet theres loads of bugs games

b) whatever blizz/valve churns out twice a decade

and c) absolute sh** that ea gives casuals who deserve better than a reskin and slight visual improvements (hello ea sports and the sims expansions)

The problem? the pc sells itself, its primary use is not exclusive to gaming hence pc hardware makers have no incentives to go into gaming, the pc needs and operating system and thus ms, mac etc. can sell their operating systems without going into gaming (ms wld rather sacrifice pc ports for xbox sales). Now pc savvy guys on here will go and make whatever that does arrive on pc the best experience of all the consoles but the lack of developer support will continue to lower the pc fanbase. You think about the great pc developers at the start of the decade. How many are still developing for pc?

The face that the pc is still relevant in gaming is only testament of how great the availability of custom settings, modding and freedom the system can provide.

It isn't the best game system for the majority of gamers because a gaming PC is the most expensive choice, the hassle of researching about parts to have it built, the constant upgrades required to play newer games smoothly & it is the least social system. Lan partys were very rare when I went through school (A couple of mates I knew had some every now & then but I could never be bothered to haul my PC over to someones house), where as playing Halo with some mates was simple. One machine, one copy of the game - All that was needed was an extra controller or two when the host didn't have 4. The most complex thing to do is system link two consoles, which is much easier then setting up a lan party.

Basically, unless you are really interested in select PC games, playing on consoles is more cost effective, simple to buy & not having to worry about it until the next console is launched, & simple for social events. Coupled with the ease of pirating PC games, its beginning to take the back seat.

pc has all my games that i can play at night timefunsohng

The problem? the pc sells itself, its primary use is not exclusive to gaming hence pc hardware makers have no incentives to go into gaming, the pc needs and operating system and thus ms, mac etc. can sell their operating systems without going into gaming (ms wld rather sacrifice pc ports for xbox sales).

MondeEdlu

You do have some valid points, but this paragraph is a bunch of BS. PC hardware manufacturers have no incentive to get into pc gaming? Where do you think these companies make the biggest profits? PC gaming hardware. They can sell the high end stuff at a high profit margin, they can't do this with with the lower end stuff that is sold to the every day consumer. PC gaming and workstations are the only places they do this, and if they don't go into the gaming market well over 50% of the high end market is gone.

I agree that the OS developers don't give a crap about gaming, but software is not hardware (they are opposites actually)

It isn't the best game system because a gaming PC is the most expensive choice, the hassle of researching about parts to have it built, the constant upgrades required to play newer games smoothly & it is the least social system. Lan partys were very rare when I went through school (A couple of mates I knew had some every now & then but I could never be bothered to haul my PC over to someones house), where as playing Halo with some mates was simple. One machine, one copy of the game - All that was needed was an extra controller or two when the host didn't have 4. The most complex thing to do is system link two consoles, which is much easier then setting up a lan party.

Basically, unless you are really interested in select PC games, playing on consoles is more cost effective, simple to buy & not having to worry about it until the next console is launched, & simple for social events. Coupled with the ease of pirating PC games, its beginning to take the back seat.

Twin-Blade

software:

http://store.steampowered.com/

hardware:

http://www.newegg.com/

Now figure it out on your own.

In short, best hardware price-performance ratios by far, best software prices/selection by far, and, oh yeah....

http://www.moddb.com/

Best product lifespan by far.

[QUOTE="funsohng"]pc has all my games that i can play at night timeBrownesque

[QUOTE="MondeEdlu"]

The problem? the pc sells itself, its primary use is not exclusive to gaming hence pc hardware makers have no incentives to go into gaming, the pc needs and operating system and thus ms, mac etc. can sell their operating systems without going into gaming (ms wld rather sacrifice pc ports for xbox sales).

You do have some valid points, but this paragraph is a bunch of BS. PC hardware manufacturers have no incentive to get into pc gaming? Where do you think these companies make the biggest profits? PC gaming hardware. They can sell the high end stuff at a high profit margin, they can't do this with with the lower end stuff that is sold to the every day consumer. PC gaming and workstations are the only places they do this, and if they don't go into the gaming market well over 50% of the high end market is gone.

I agree that the OS developers don't give a crap about gaming, but software is not hardware (they are opposites actually)

Very few PC exclusive developers have stopped developing for the PC....in fact, I can't think of one. More often than not you have PC exclusive developers making multiplatform games. Yet the fact remains that the PC still has a very robust exclusives catalogue and gets plenty of hand-me-downs from consoles. The PC also has the most robust indie development scene on any platform along with truly obscure games that would never show up on the consoles.... You also have to consider the fact that many mod communities are incredibly dedicated to their product despite the fact that few people will play them and they have to be distributed for free.....so the question of incentives, in my view, falls flat. The way I see it the largest quantity of capital gets drawn into the console market....you have massive production values, huge budgets, and most of all, huge advertising budgets. That's a lot of capital investment. Generally console games hit big and then dwindle as the used game market takes over sales and production/interest dissipates. PC games have far more long lasting and active communities, that is, at least, on your average game. You still have Halo on consoles, I guess.Brownesque

[QUOTE="MondeEdlu"]

The problem? the pc sells itself, its primary use is not exclusive to gaming hence pc hardware makers have no incentives to go into gaming, the pc needs and operating system and thus ms, mac etc. can sell their operating systems without going into gaming (ms wld rather sacrifice pc ports for xbox sales).

You do have some valid points, but this paragraph is a bunch of BS. PC hardware manufacturers have no incentive to get into pc gaming? Where do you think these companies make the biggest profits? PC gaming hardware. They can sell the high end stuff at a high profit margin, they can't do this with with the lower end stuff that is sold to the every day consumer. PC gaming and workstations are the only places they do this, and if they don't go into the gaming market well over 50% of the high end market is gone.

I agree that the OS developers don't give a crap about gaming, but software is not hardware (they are opposites actually)

The devs are still there, very few have completely abandoned PC, most have just expanded to multiplat development, not to mention new devs that have provided us games like Soase, Witcher and Stalker.

The lack of one strong company to back PC up is a weakness, but that's the price for having an open platform, and imo it's a price well worth paying.

In the end I've had a blast with PC this gen. Many of my fav games like Dragon Age and Fallout 3 are indeed multiplats, but I much rather play them on PC so it's still my first choise for a gaming system.

The devs are still there, very few have completely abandoned PC, most have just expanded to multiplat development, not to mention new devs that have provided us games like Soase, Witcher and Stalker.

The lack of one strong company to back PC up is a weakness, but that's the price for having an open platform, and imo it's a price well worth paying.

In the end I've had a blast with PC this gen. Many of my fav games like Dragon Age and Fallout 3 are indeed multiplats, but I much rather play them on PC so it's still my first choise for a gaming system.

ManicAce