Looking back on the last 8 years of PC gaming

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Evil_Rage
#1 Edited by Evil_Rage (35 posts) -

First off, I am fine with publishers/developers wanting to offer the game on as many platforms as possible there is a financial reason for that, I understand that. I am however, NOT for forcing people to use programs to do something as simple as play a game. I do not understand why people continue to defend DRM platforms like Origin, STEAM, U-Play, or whatever other third party program exists nowadays that solely exist to control and stifle the gaming experience of the end user. I am an advocate for drm free gaming, which we have few such titles on PC with the option.

My other problems with PC gaming for years now, has been tied directly to the publishers/developers, and also the hardware companies (yeah I've got problems with everyone involved. I'm not going to just blame the devs as its not always all their fault), I know new technology is always coming out, but there is no excuse that they could possibly give for any game running at playable frame rates on 4,5, 6 and even 7 year old gpus and cpus not because of wonderful work by the devs, but by giving us the console version on PC, which is designed to work on hardware you likely can't even buy due to their age, I know they are trying to make money, I get that, but I'm not going to sit here in silence or let them rip me off for quality they are not delivering.

Due to games running on older hardware, what reason is there if you already run 2560x1600 and games are playable? You have had no real reason at all to upgrade, because your getting little to no benefit.

Developers/publishers always have access to the best version of the game, which is then watered down to a playable state on consoles, and we never see what the true PC version could have been (Note: I don't count mods, mods are not part of the original game, please leave mods out of this) how many games have actually been PC focused over the last 8 years?

I don't mean just in graphical/visual quality, but overall quality. Would it really have affected anything on the console side if they gave us actual PC games? Sure we'd have the best looking and performing version of the game, but isn't that the point of all the power we pay top dollar for in our PC cases? We have all this powerful and expensive hardware us PC gamers can spend from 500 to 1000 dollars on (for a complete rig, including mouse, keyboard and a basic monitor) I'm not even counting those who have 2560x1600 30 inch IPS monitors and greater than 1000 dollar builds, and the best you can give us is a sub-720p game with extremely low resolution textures ripped straight out the console builds of the game, massive amounts of bugs and other such problems, yet the game will run at its console level resolution on a custom built or pre-built or even a laptop I could have spent 400 dollars or probably less on?

Especially if I were to go and buy old hardware that is extremely affordable and throw it together. There goes the 500-1000 dollars I spent on new hardware thinking I'm getting a superior experience. Yeah right. That type of experience has led to my feeling like I'm just wasting money on powerful hardware, for nothing. That's what it is, its a waste. Does any game have textures that make running them at 2560x1600 actually look remarkable and worth the money spent on the GPU? Does any game utilize all the threads we have on the CPU? (Do not bring up mods, I don't count modders' work as replacing the developers' original lack thereof of effort, I am judging the original game on release)

I'm not going to turn a blind eye and accept things without speaking my mind. So many people just accept this and actually become hostile to me for not going along like they are, that it makes me sick.

Now, take that and add in all the new hardware always coming out with no reason to buy any of it because if your able to find older parts, you can build an extremely powerful yet cheap gaming htpc with older parts and be set for years due to games being designed to work on extremely old hardware with no scalability for more powerful systems beyond pointless amounts of anti-aliasing. Now with the new consoles, what guarantee is there, that developers will go beyond 7790/ 7850/ 7870 level of quality just because the consoles are using PC parts?

I know people will look at this thread and be overly hostile to my point of view, but this is how I've viewed the last 8 years of PC Gaming.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#2 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

maybe you should find a new hobby then

Avatar image for RevanBITW
#3 Posted by RevanBITW (739 posts) -

Someone call the wambulance.

Avatar image for PredatorRules
#4 Edited by PredatorRules (11810 posts) -

I am angry as well for devs not focusing more on PC games, but I can't blame them because they're leaning towards money, and there's much more money in the making of console games.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#5 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (21870 posts) -

That's why I stick with gaming PCs the $850-$900 price range. That's equivalent enough to my needs had I gone strictly console for gaming + a non-gaming PC.

My tastes are pretty simple though. I'm fine with game detail a notch or two below Ultra. I can also go down in res from 1080p to 900p by switching the primary monitor in a dual monitor set up. I don't jump the gun and upgrade until I have a solid reason for doing so. That's experience from gaming continuously on the PC since 1992. I learned to control the upgrade itch.

That said, I'd say the last five years have been great for PC gaming to me in the classic PC genres: flight sims (FSX, X-Plane, DCS series, Aerofly FS, IL2 series), strategy (the Total War series, Civilization series, World in Conflict), FPS (Stalker CoP, Far Cry 3, ARMA 2/OA, etc), plus the other genres and real console ports.

If you think consoles are where it's at, by all means, switch. Not me. Even if consoles achieved parity with the PC in graphics, I'd still go with the PC because I think the keyboard and mouse combo is the best control scheme for FPS games. Plus, the genre (flight sims) I love has been traditionally on the PC.

I mean I also game on consoles mostly for a handful of exclusives and sports games. But, the bulk of my time is spent gaming on the PC.

Avatar image for Glutenbob
#6 Edited by Glutenbob (249 posts) -

I completely agree with the OP. I am currently holding out on building a new PC, and if I do itll be under $1000 and probably not get an upgrade for 5 yrs. Its the sad state of PC gaming, but hopefully now with console and PC archietecture being much more similar we wont get horrible shoddy ports. Either way, being guarenteed 1080p and 60 Fps on most games is enough advantage over the consoles, but with horrible console ports you spend more time tweaking the game than enjoying it.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#7 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (21870 posts) -

Can someone make a list of these horrible "console ports?" I mean I can count three none of which I play:

Saints Row 2

GTA 4

Dark Souls

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#8 Posted by MBirdy88 (11943 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

Can someone make a list of these horrible "console ports?" I mean I can count three none of which I play:

Saints Row 2

GTA 4

Dark Souls

the latter 2 were fixed so fast they are far superior to the console versions.

this whole thread is moronic, our main genres, MMO, MOBA, FPS, Strategy (all forms) and simluation are still pretty much uniqe/prime on PC.

couldn't give a damn if multiplats are not REALLY better....

you expect companies to bend over backwards for the platform with less returns?.

the TC's post is completely overexaggerated... and purely focused on graphical power.

who cares?

Avatar image for soolkiki
#9 Posted by soolkiki (1783 posts) -

I actually like steam because I don't have to even think about where my games are. All my saves are online and I can redownload games at a whim. However, I do see your point. I suppose there are always cons to go with the pros.

Now, when you are speaking about making games for PCs, I can agree that the optimization for PC games is usually pretty terrible, if not awful. I would love to see more optimization and more time and money invested into an endeavor like that. While it's harder to optimize for such a wide range of PCs, it's far from impossible.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#10 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

Even the worst console ports are still better on PC (e.g. GTA4).

There are also whole genres exclusive to PC. I can understand being unhappy if you just play the big mainstream games that are all on console, but personally I rarely use my PS3 and I have less than 20 games for it compared with my 150+ game steam library. (I've even had the PS3 longer)

Avatar image for nicecall
#11 Posted by nicecall (528 posts) -

I didnt read your whole speech it was too long. But the DRM thing is bad... but if they want to keep using it I can only suggest they make a clear statement to customers that after a year the game is released, the company will release an offline patch that would allow you to install the game even if you don't have internet, without needing to have terrible steam installed or crap like that.

I don't like buying a game knowing I can't actually install or play it without needing to be their bitch and install other 3rd party apps to install the game.

I haven't bought a PC game since Borderlands 2... took me days to get it installed and running because I only had dialup at the time because a lightening storm destroyed my wireless tower radio which I used for highspeed. Long story short, you shouldn't need to install and run long game patches on a game you bought... i never played the game online i have no idea why it had to download so many updates or what they even did... the whole reason i bought the game was so I didnt have to download it... if i knew I had to download so much I would have just downloaded it from a torrent site for free once my internet was working again.

Avatar image for FelipeInside
#12 Edited by FelipeInside (28447 posts) -

@nicecall said:

I didnt read your whole speech it was too long. But the DRM thing is bad... but if they want to keep using it I can only suggest they make a clear statement to customers that after a year the game is released, the company will release an offline patch that would allow you to install the game even if you don't have internet, without needing to have terrible steam installed or crap like that.

I don't like buying a game knowing I can't actually install or play it without needing to be their bitch and install other 3rd party apps to install the game.

I haven't bought a PC game since Borderlands 2... took me days to get it installed and running because I only had dialup at the time because a lightening storm destroyed my wireless tower radio which I used for highspeed. Long story short, you shouldn't need to install and run long game patches on a game you bought... i never played the game online i have no idea why it had to download so many updates or what they even did... the whole reason i bought the game was so I didnt have to download it... if i knew I had to download so much I would have just downloaded it from a torrent site for free once my internet was working again.

- You don't need to run all the patches to play most games, maybe 1 or 2 if you didn't buy it at launch

- Most game patches are small, unless it's an MMO

- You would download from a torrent site, this makes you PART OF THE PROBLEM why we have DRM in the first place

- You never played a game online so don't talk about what you don't know

- Be their bitch? Have you considered the advantages of clients like Steam instead of just looking at the bad things?

- You haven't bought a PC game since BL2? What do you play on? consoles? or are you just pirating now? If the later same point as before, you are part of the problem.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#13 Posted by R4gn4r0k (26350 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

I am angry as well for devs not focusing more on PC games, but I can't blame them because they're leaning towards money, and there's much more money in the making of console games.

I don't want to turn this into system wars or anything. But there are more PC games coming out than on any single console. I think that says something: there is a lot of money to be earned with PC gaming.

Consoles seem to have more multi-million franchises, but devs need to invest a lot of money to get that success (and also need to invest a lot in marketing), and it can be hit or miss (which means they can also lose a lot of money). While PC has less monetary requirements and you see it's the starting ground of a lot of devs.

There really isn't a lot of factors keeping devs from releasing their games on PC, except for inexperience (japanese devs mostly) and console manufacturer money or 1st/2nd party games.

@kraken2109 said:

Even the worst console ports are still better on PC (e.g. GTA4).

There are also whole genres exclusive to PC. I can understand being unhappy if you just play the big mainstream games that are all on console, but personally I rarely use my PS3 and I have less than 20 games for it compared with my 150+ game steam library. (I've even had the PS3 longer)

Also true. Except for ports that become absolutely unplayable through DRM.

Saints Row 2 is also a very bad port and it's still a lot better than the console version. I had soooo much more fun with GTA IV on PC, solely with the video editor.

When devs port a game to PC 1-1 with the console version it's called a bad port. That says something about the standard of PC games and ports.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#14 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

@kraken2109 said:

Even the worst console ports are still better on PC (e.g. GTA4).

There are also whole genres exclusive to PC. I can understand being unhappy if you just play the big mainstream games that are all on console, but personally I rarely use my PS3 and I have less than 20 games for it compared with my 150+ game steam library. (I've even had the PS3 longer)

wolfenstein 3d actually looks waaaaay better on 3do than on pc. but thats just one instance

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#15 Posted by MBirdy88 (11943 posts) -

@nicecall said:

I didnt read your whole speech it was too long. But the DRM thing is bad... but if they want to keep using it I can only suggest they make a clear statement to customers that after a year the game is released, the company will release an offline patch that would allow you to install the game even if you don't have internet, without needing to have terrible steam installed or crap like that.

I don't like buying a game knowing I can't actually install or play it without needing to be their bitch and install other 3rd party apps to install the game.

I haven't bought a PC game since Borderlands 2... took me days to get it installed and running because I only had dialup at the time because a lightening storm destroyed my wireless tower radio which I used for highspeed. Long story short, you shouldn't need to install and run long game patches on a game you bought... i never played the game online i have no idea why it had to download so many updates or what they even did... the whole reason i bought the game was so I didnt have to download it... if i knew I had to download so much I would have just downloaded it from a torrent site for free once my internet was working again.

.... bwhahahahahaha.

hypocritical. the laughs.

"Steam is bad.... I have to be connected sometimes to play my games...." then goes and pirates.

Avatar image for Gladestone1
#16 Posted by Gladestone1 (5649 posts) -

Steam more or less saved the pc a few years back..Its not a bad program or drm as your calling it..Just because you don't have access to online don't mean 90 percent of pc users do..Love steam myself I can live with out origin, that was just eas way to try an stick it to steam..Also keep there own line up exclusive on eas site..Gog is a wonderful drm as your calling it..Games you cant buy any more older games u can download on the cheap on this site..I think its people like you who are narrow minded an cant see the benefit that steam started years ago..Id hate to see gaming as we know it now with out steam, for the pc..It be a totally different world I can tell you that..Its like people who hate kickstarter it makes me laugh..Saying how the companies are making a mockery of the gaming industry an stealing money from the fans..

Look at pe an star citizen sure they raised 30m..This game will be one of the best games in a very long time for the space genre..Its being programed bye one of the fonders of the pc market...There quit a few games like torment being made wasteland 2, shadowrun..Prime examples of this..Divinity original sin is in alpha atm an im enjoying it..So this drm sites you claim are ruining the gaming industry im saying the total opisate they have pretty much saved the pc market..Im glad for them to be here as we know it..Also gives a chane for the space genre to make a come back..An say to ea that we want the space genre..

Avatar image for nicecall
#17 Edited by nicecall (528 posts) -

^ Indeed... Divinity Original Sin is pretty much a safe buy. It says right in their FAQ their game will be DRM free... actually i dunno if the game is free or optional to buy. I couldn't tell from the site