Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyr
Valve does it pretty well. They build for PC first, port to console, and both versions end up being fantastic.
|
Valve has a vested interest in the healthiness of the PC/Mac platforms with Steam though.
Makes sense for them from a business standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox 6
MMOs tend to be quite popular, and there is still hype for them. "Star Wars: The Old Republic" has quite a bit of buzz around it. Do I even have to point out Starcraft?
|
I feel like a handful of them are truly successful, I mean in the last month, we've had 3 MMOs abandon the pay 2 play model for a free 2 play model.
And honestly, no one has found a way to do a successful MMO on consoles yet.
And this just seems like perfect timing, but with the recent release and problems with RAGE, here is what John Carmack had to say about PC gaming.
Quote:
|
"You can choose to design a game around the specs of a high-end PC and make console versions that fail to hit the design point, or design around the specs of the consoles and have a high-end PC provide incremental quality improvements," Carmack replied. "We chose the latter."
|
Quote:
|
"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it. Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."
|
http://kotaku.com/5847761/why-was-th...such-a-cluster