Is Guild Wars 2 the last major game exclusive to the PC?

Is it? If so, what a frustrating generation for us PC gamer to be living in. Guild Wars 2 is perhaps not only much bigger than Skyrim as a whole but also prettier. From 1080P video shown on youtube, it make the graphic in Skyrim child play.

God, screw all console gamer!

 

No...pretty much any MMO will be PC exclusive.

 

There are a ton, especially several indy games, but if you're looking for a notably good triple A game that isn't an MMO, I recommend the ARMA series: ARMA 2, and ARMA 3 will always (*hopefully*) remain a PC game and the depth and detail in the game is unbelievable.

But as mentioned, typically any MMO will also be, not in the least EVE online, on the other hand there is the matter of DUST 514 going to consoles...

 

And any real-time strategy. I mean, SCII is kind of huge, and it's PC only.

 

EA games would like to have a word with you.

 

*googles quick* I hadn't realized they'd ported some of the C&C games to consoles. Regardless, the C&C franchise is nothing compared to SC2. C&C 4 was barely a flash in a pan. SC2 is an e-sports phenomenon the likes of which we haven't seen since, well, SC1.

 

I have ARMA II and Operation Arrowhead and I love it! So many FPS fans don't even like that game, but I guess I'm just hardcore.

 

If I had to guess I'd say because they can't insta-spawn next to the enemy base while calling in predator drones while they infini-run down the middle of a camped alleyway firing akimbo AK47's at zombies.

 

are you talking about of all time? lol. i don't know what got you thinking that, but, uhh..

No.

 

No just lately. Every game that has been made for the PC has either been multi-platform or console port.

 

I just saw GW2 in the title and noting else and I have to say this..

ITS GOING TO BE EPIC @_@

 

GW2 isn't the only PC-exlusive title of of late. It's not even the only PC-exclusive within its genre.

If you're going to take the stance of hating all console gamers because cross platform graphics are worse than single platform graphics, you might want to at least do your due diligence and take a different example than Guild Wars 2. Here's some in game footage of both. I don't want to get into too much of a debate over this, but I'm stunned that you think GW2 has better graphics than Skyrim. I'm jaw-dropped that you think GW2 brings Skyrim's graphics down to "children-level" graphics. It's sort of a crazy statement. Have you seen both games?

Guild wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRI_twOZ8hI&feature=related

Skyrim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qYm_oHS5Y

 

That not a good video demonstration of guild wars 2 graphics.

 

Why do people care whether or not a game is PC exclusive?

Newsflash, console releases = bigger budgets. The reason why there aren't AAA PC only releases is because you can't fund a AAA budget when you're only expecting to sell it on the PC. That ended a long time ago. Get with it.

 

Well, there's this small indie game that I don't know if you guys have heard of - I think it's called Diablo III.

I also find it to be a frustrating time to be a PC gamer. It is unfortunate that other people can have fun without spending a bunch of money on a computer. Now what am I supposed to brag about to anonymous strangers on the internet who only have an Xbox? I used to be able to prove their inferiority. Now I only have my sense of self-righteousness to separate me.

 

Which is also going to have a console version.

 

Aww man, I've lost the will to live now.

 

Feel free to provide a better demonstration. That clip is straight from the game

Diablo may or may not have a console version in the future. Hasn't been decided yet afaik.

 

I will get back to you on that because it hard to find that video now that youtube is full of GW2 videos.

 

Blizzard does (Starcraft 2 and WoW) but not hoping for Diablo 3 to be PC exclusives, since they are targeting it to be playable in consoles as well.

 

Yeah Diablo 3 is doing quite a few things different.... Real Life Money Auction House....

 

I would say this link is a fairly accurate version of its gameplay (the one you provided was mixed badly, if that makes sense)

Guild Wars 2: Epic Bossfight against Tequatl the Sunless - gamescom 2011 - YouTube

Skip to 2:00mins as everything before that is meh; seeing as how this is related to skyrim, at 2:00mins is the dragons moment

dragons in GW2 > dragons in Skyrim, just saying @_@

 

The graphics look about the same to me as the other demonstration.

The game looks very COOL, big, epic, etc, don't get me wrong. But comparing it against skyrim on the merit of its graphics is insane. I think this video demo looks more interesting and epic, but the graphics are about the same. Not even the same class as skyrim.

I'm not saying skyrim is better overall, GW has a lot that Skyrim *cant* have, like multiplayer, which is a huge change. I'm more concerned with your earlier commentary about whether cross platform game development is impacting graphics. It's clearly not, and moreover, this is clearly an example supporting that view.

 

NO that is not a good guild wars 2 graphic either, it weird how I can't find it. But I will find it soon.

 

We have a decent amount of footage compiled. I'm not sure what you expect to find that is significantly different. This seems more than sufficient as is.

 

I don't understand why a game has to be exclusive to be fun.

Also BF3 is a game with major plus features on the PC side.

Diablo 3's console version (if it exists) probably won't look anything like Diablo 3 PC.

Heart of the Swarm will be PC only.

 

This. Who cares if console people have a version of the game as well? I mean, people are complaining that games aren't as pretty if they're also capable of running on consoles, but there are some GORGEOUS games on consoles. I mean, everyone criticized Final Fantasy XIII for being linear and slow-paced, but NOBODY said it wasn't gorgeous enough to enjoy as visual spectacle.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 'PS3 Promise Trailer' [1080p] TRUE-HD QUALITY - YouTube (best when viewed at 1080p)

Assuming we're not talking about desktop gaming PCs, how expensive of a laptop do you need to be able to outperform a Playstation III graphics-wise, anyway? I don't doubt for a second that a PS3 could run laps around both of my machines in terms of gorgeous-looking output.

 

Back in the days of Modern Warfare 1, you would need a pretty good laptop to get console graphics.

In the days of Modern Warfare 3 however, your current laptop can probably outperform most console games.

 

I believe GW is not alone, Blizzard as far as I know hasn't consolized any of its recent games.

 

It can't be true that every video is a bad representation of GW2's graphics.

 

Cross platform games are holding back graphics in some senses. The majority of cross platform games have PC added as an afterthought, with very little to show for it. All they ever really add is support for higher resolution and higher AA/AF, anything more than that is unusual. It's not even like it takes any work on their part to make it possible to bump up the resolution, it's just a simple change in some game engine variables.

There's also the fact that in focusing on making things look as good as possible on consoles developers inadvertantly make it run terribly by comparison on PC. That's not to say that it won't look better on a PC, it's just that a whole load of its power is just thrown away because of the different merits of each platform.

Cross platform games aren't the problem themselves, it's just how they're being implimented. If developers thought of PC as a true third platform rather than a mere afterthought then things would all be fine and we'd be skipping around in the meadows making daisy chains, but that isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that the majority of developers ignore PC gaming for almost all of the time the have to work on a project, and then hack it in at the very last minute to the point that it merely "works".

 

You've got questionable ports like GTA4 behind you. Yes. I think from a computer science standpoint, what bothers me about all this cross platform crying in general is that there are real issues with modern games that people notice and are trying to attribute to something, and they have very little to do with being cross platform. Somehow it's become popular to put the blame on that.

 

I agree that people are quick to blame, but there's a reason why games like GTA4 need a quad core to run well. For a start, most games for consoles are written with their merits in mind, that being that they have a vastly over powered CPU compared to their graphics. So from the start the game is going to be pretty CPU heavy, then mix that in with a poor job of porting it over to PC and you get a game which needs a quad to run properly without anything like input lag, as is the case with the majority of console ports.

When the rare PC exclusive game comes along, these problems are much less frequent, since the games were written with a computers merits in mind. Gaming PC's have vastly more powerful graphics than consoles but are still behind in some special contexts (floating point calculation is one of them, the PS3 is an absolute beast in the sense).

What it comes down to in the end is laziness, game developers don't feel that what they get back from tuning up the PC version is worth the effort, given that they're making most of their money from consoles. I guess I shouldn't solely blame the developers though, publishers like EA are increadibly profit driven, to the point of forcing the release of completely unfinished projects simply in order to meat a deadline and make some money, to them they simply see it in the sense that they can make money more quickly if they release on deadline - which is true.

 

This is sort of right. I don't completely agree with all of this, but I don't want to get into it.

 

Game developers are simply targeting the lowest common denominator to maximize profits these days - if anything, you can blame the fact that the PC gaming market isn't big enough to be worthwhile in comparison to the console market.

On the other hand, Nvidia needs to do something about this situation because at this rate integrated graphics will be able to run the latest releases at ultra high quality in 2 or 3 years and there won't be any point to getting a discrete GPU anymore.

Either way, it looks like Crysis is the last big PC exclusive, at least in terms of making top of the line PC hardware sweat.

 

When the console refresh comes about, things will hopefully be different. It really depends how much of an upgrade the new consoles are though.

 

When the 360/PS3 came out, they were in line with the highest-end PC hardware at the time weren't they? I wouldn't expect much less this time around, although I don't think PCs had access to Crossfire/SLI when the last-gen consoles came out did they?

And before all of you knock console games, remember, they're the reason that all of you with Core 2-era hardware are still able to run modern games without dishing out cash on an upgrade. Personally, I'm happy for that aspect of it.

And honestly, if games remain at BF3 levels of graphics for the next couple years, I'm perfectly happy with that.

 

There will definitely be a huge bump when the console refresh arrives, but everything I've seen so far indicates that a console refresh is in the far distant future, distant enough that Sandy Bridge laptop owners will have upgraded by then. And given the rate of technological progress as well as the focus on IGP performance these days, I'm sure an IGP in a laptop a few years from now will be as powerful as a desktop GTX 580 is today.

Both Sony and Microsoft insist that the latest games have yet to "use the full potential" of their respective consoles. Sony seems to be committed to a 10-year lifecycle for the PS3, which would put the PS4 around 2016 if Sony gets their way, and Microsoft has indicated that they want to keep the 360 around for a couple more years as well.

I'm hoping that Nintendo's new console next year will be amazing/popular enough to get Sony and Microsoft to change their minds...

 

That isn't what 10 year life cycle means necessarily. The PS2 had an 8-10 year life cycle. This means they supported it and sold it until like 2010. The PS3 will be similar. The PS4 can come out earlier however.

If I remember correctly even though the 360 and PS3 were weaker then desktop PCs in 06 and 07, console optimization made games look as good as anything but high end 100% gaming focused computers. That is no longer the case.

I'm hoping for a new gen in 2013.

The real reason PC games have less focus, isn't cross platform development. Its disappointing sales on the PC platform. MW3 makes like $400 million on release date because of the Xbox 360. How many PC games make $400 million over life time? Crysis 2 sold more on the 360 then the PC. What is up with that? Crysis one sold one million copies in the time it takes 8.5 games on the console to sell 2-3 million copies. If PC games sold more, PC games would have better graphics. Game developers are going to deliver the PC less high quality games if they don't make very much money selling PC games.

Blizzard makes PC games because SC2 sold like 4.5 million copies. That still isn't that impressive on the console. That is less then games like Gears of War 3 etc. However it is enough for them to make a lot of money selling to the PC platform. If other PC games sold similar (especially cross platform games) they would make more money.

Crysis 2 is probably a worse game then Crysis 1. Crysis 2 sold more. Why? It was on consoles. People are motivated by money, its just the way the world works.

 

At least we still have Valve. They're dumbing down CS a bit with their new release, but so far they haven't shown many signs of seeing PC's as being a lesser platform to focus on. If anything they design their games with PC's in mind first and then make them run well on consoles.

 

It basically sums up to this question;

Why pay 600+ for a rig that makes a game look a few levels higher in graphics when you can play that same game decently on a console for a 3rd of that price? More people have consoles because they are cheap. So companies primarily focus on consoles for sales.

Im really hoping they increase the ram and vram of next gens up to wherever the PC's are. I forgot what company(s) said this but they said that the ram was the limiting factor of the games

I agree that companies should really focus on both console and PC in seperate categories but oh well, money talks right? World is full of greed.

 

Yes, $600 is a lot, but a lot of people already have computers, and it's more about investing in a $150-200 graphics card than $600. Can be cheaper than a console because of the marginal cost.

 

that 150-200 is the equivalent of a console right, I mean I understand your post but in the minds of everyone, they can buy a console for the price of 1 component and play games that can run it smoothly for the next 5-8 years instead of upgrading that same component and dropping more money.

It can be cheaper depending on your standards. You can play it at the crappiest quality in the lowest resolution but really, you can do better just buying a console ya know?

its all about your standard

 

It depends. Comparing a $200 graphics card today vs a $200 console today, I think you'd get better graphics today, and more longevity out of the graphics card. 5 years ago, maybe not.

BF3 on an xbox, for example, is 1280*704. $200 worth of GPU can run BF3 on a PC at much higher settings AND 1920*1080, and 60 fps instead of 30. I'm not really sure why you think you'd have worse quality with $200 worth of modern GPU compared to a console that costs $200 total from 2005/2006.

 

Consoles are about ~$400 when they first come out, and if you want to get peripherals they're usually closer to $500 after tax.

For $500 you could get the best of the best gpu at that time and likely still save money, or you could get 2x of the previous generation and SLI/CF them and still save money. Your games will always then look better than their console counterparts.

 

Youre missing the whole point. Im not arguing the fact that you wont get better graphics on a PC compared to consoles. Its all enveloped to what you pick as your standard.

Im saying that the component alone costs 200 where as you can just get the whole system for 200. Sometimes you even have to upgrade your PSU adding more money and other stuff to factor in. What if you need a stronger CPU? or more ram? With a console, youll know youll get the playability for years to come.

This is just on the graphics alone, not mentioning the different playability youll get. A console is more towards having company over and playing rather than being just one person.

I mean if what youre saying is so economical, dont ya think PC sales woulda triumphed the console sales? Its just better economically.

Alot of people are fine with playing 30fps @ 720p if it just costs under 200 to enjoy it.

Im not taking the side of consoles, nor pc. Each has their respective feats and weakness.

 

I understand your point, but I'm trying to point out that your numbers are wrong.

I can't remember the last time a consoles was $200 at release. The PS3 was $500 (for the cheap one) at release, before taxes and buying a second controller. So that's almost $600 total. You could build an entire decent computer for that.

 

If we are talking about release price, then thats a different story. I thought we were referring to prices now, I think the ps3 and 360 were around 200ish during the last couple as well and next gen wont be here for another few more years.

Ah well.

 

I'm not sure what we're talking about. You said computers cost $600 and consoles are $200, so why would anyone buy a computer since games still work decently on consoles?

I was just trying to point out that people buy computers for a variety of reasons. Consoles don't currently take the place of computers for doing work. A lot of people have computers anyway, and the marginal cost of upgrading a computer to a gaming capable state can be more economical than buying a dedicated console. This is an answer to your question. It's one reason why people would buy a computer instead of a console. It does not apply to everyone.

The other obvious reason is that even if a PC did cost more, the person might elect to purchase it over a console anyway for graphics quality and performance reasons. You came up with that yourself.

There's not really any need for a big debate, I was just trying to answer your question.

 

As long as we're focused on the business side of things, a few more things come to mind.

1) Thanks to digital distribution, the overhead for getting games to customer is quite a bit lower than with consoles. Yeah, you can download lots of games these days on consoles, but the availability and amount you can store at a time are pretty limited. Why do you think so many PC developers love Steam? They are allowed to get their product out to a significant audience and take home a much larger share of the profit than they otherwise would be able to.

2) The selection and sheer diversity among PC games is many times that of Consoles. Let's face it, there are certain genres that just don't do well on consoles(like RTS, as has been mentioned). There are a few that admitedly don't hold up as well on a PC(such as fighting games), but you can usually solve this by using a gamepad.

While I don't have numbers to back anything up, I believe the money being spent on PC games is spread out over a much wider field than consoles. Think of how many games are released for a console, even if you include garbage games like Barbie and the 500+ party games for Wii. There are generally a handful at any given time for each console. Compare that to the huge amount of games, including indie games(but NOT including casual/facebook games), that come out each month on PC.

And that actually brings up another point: Browser/Casual games. You want to talk about where the money's at? Pretty sure Zynga would laugh in your face if you suggested that consoles were bigger money makers than PCs. Among real developers, yes. Among indie developers and the browser/fb based side of things, hell no.