Discuss. I personally am surprised that he of all people would say this. Move this if wrong section or lock it if there is an already existing thread.

http://www.gamefront.com/carmack-we-do-not-see-the-pc-as-the-leading-platform-for-games/

It's just a demographic fact.

I didn't read it all but I got the jist of what he's saying.
Its not the leader because its too good, this actually made sense to me.
Because Xbox and PS3 are weaker than it the games need to be designed to be compatible with them before the PC as it should be obvious if a Xbox can handle it so can the PC. Meaning the PC is made 3rd in the line when it comes to games development, unless its an exclusive PC only game.

It may not be the lead platform, that is obvious to anyone that has read sales figures, but that does not mean developers like him can release buggy untested versions of games for PC. Either make your games console exclusive, or make the games work on PC before you release them.

Rage proves that some games are better off being on a specific piece of console. I don't see the uncharteds of the world working the same on the 360, same goes for Halo or Gears working better on the PC or PS3. Not to mention that the PC version of RAGE is forced Steamworks, that right there means it fails for me.

One word: money

Consoles are cheaper, they don't need to be upgraded every other year. Its not hard to see why they are more popular.

Yeeeeep, that's definitely the reason. :thumbsup:

I can't tell if thats sarcasm or not but yeahhh

Didn't he just say a couple months ago that it was a mistake to focus on the consoles for Rage, and they wouldn't make that mistake again? I wish I could remember where the article he said that in was...

http://kotaku.com/5847570/once-again-gabe-newell-says-why-pcs-are-great

I've said it before in the Rage board, I'll say it again. This is blatantly marketing speak. The second time a Zenimax higher up has said it (after Howard). It's probably an agreement between Altman and Penello/Delman. In b4 drones telling me that id is not Zeni. We all know how it goes.

Naturally a publisher is interested in making money first and foremost. As for a head of studio, they understand that the budget they receive from the publisher has to be paid back. Not many are going to effectively say to the publisher "I want to make this for cutting edge hardware, therefore it will be PC exclusive, so give me less of a budget".

If you have cutting edge hardware yourself then you miss out on what is theoretically possible, if you don't then you are happy to be able to have more game choice. PC users will have to be content with only occasionally getting big-budget PC exclusives like Crysis, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Its fact.

EVERY developer is the same. Consoles make the money.

It was sarcasm but you're right either way.

Fine, PCs are more powerful, we understand that and that's why we put our money into PC gaming.

Why don't you just stop making PC titles, then? I'd rather a game not come out at all for PC than them trying to push a $50-$60 title for PC that is a carbon copy of the console version.

I clicked on the link within that article... and I cannot tell if "Great valve for money" was a pun or just a typo

I disagree with consoles being cheaper in the long-term. I gave the PC I built for Oblivion in 2006 to a friend of mine. It ran Oblivion as well as the 360 did at the time, and it sill does. He hasn't needed to upgrade it over the past 5 years to maintain that, and he gets the advantage of games being cheaper. :shrug: The only reason to upgrade every couple of years is to maintain bleeding edge "max settings" bragging rights.

I think the main reason consoles are more popular is that they're less hassle. If you already have a decent computer adding a $100 video card gets you more power and cheaper games. That's really not that expensive.

You don't need to be PC exclusive to use cutting edge hardware when you properly design the different versions of the game. Crysis once required a cutting edge PC and wouldn't work as-is as consoles, but they are going to be releasing a version that works on consoles (it won't be exactly like the PC version, in fact it's not even using the same engine; it just scales back on what the console has trouble with and provides something similar in its place). Battlefield 3 is going to use cutting edge PC hardware, but it also will have a console version where certain things are scaled back or redesigned. The Witcher 2 also uses cutting edge PC hardware, and will be getting a console version.

The problem is thinking that the console version must be identical to the PC version. Is it really that bad to cut out that level because it's too intense for console hardware, and replace it with something similar but simpler? Is it that bad to redesign some maps or areas for the console version so they're easier on resources? Is it that bad to make the console version have closed cities with the PC version having open cities? It can be done, it has been done, and it will be done. It doesn't help when developers care more about money than building a great game that properly utilizes the user's system of choice... oh no, they may only make $94 million on the title instead of $100 million! That 6% is infinitely more important than delivering a better game for a good chunk of your paying customers.

But in fact PC versions often do have much better graphics and better frame rates. Where the PC gets screwed is in stuff that would take a lot of effort to add. If it didn't take any effort then they would just do it.

The PC getting "much better" graphics is debatable. Increasing screen resolution and using 1024x1024 textures in place of 512x512 isn't "much better". Much better would be reworking the shaders to strain current PC graphics hardware as much as it strains console graphics hardware. High quality bloom, tesselation for hair (and fur) as well as smoke and liquids (not to mention finer mesh detail), better shadows and atmospheric effects, etc.

It's also more than just graphics. The extra memory (both RAM and VRAM) and processing power can do a lot for world and gameplay design, too. A much more larger and seamless world, physics and puzzles to make your head asplode. There's a lot of potential that's going unused simply because it can't be done on consoles. Why not give PC gamers a taste of that potential while giving console gamers the best their system can provide of it?


Right, and that's what I'm saying. Cheap, effortless additions mean little. Proper meaningful "additions" take effort, and yes, it'll cost money. But IMO, that extra cost is worth it for that portion of your audience that would benefit. A company that was more concerned about making great products than maximizing profits would see that. I'm not saying a company should forgo money or profits, but they can survive without taking a constant must-get-moar-money-and-cut-costs attitude.

The great Gabe has spoken.

Oh so simple to say. I can say buying your self break pads and a disc you should be able to change your breaks yourself. Not alot of people do it but it's easy to do.

The thing is not everyone can do it. If it's really that simple we wouldn't have Mc Donalds, we would cook our own food, we wouldn't have car mechanics to change our oil and fix our cars etc etc. It's convience and consoles are more convient when playing video games than a PC is. Not everyone wants to go through the proccess of upgrading the computer, even if it's simple or not.

For some upgrading a computer seems so complicated, just like changing oil or breaks in your car. It's easily done, but for a lot of people it's not easy to do.

So Skyrim and Fallout 4 should be console only then?

If they don't take time to make the PC version to the best of their ability, yes.

Please use the existing thread to discuss this interview: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1238285-oct-7-kotaku-interview-john-carmack/