I will still boycott madden football for no PC version

[Trick13]

Quote: Originally Posted by NikeBlitz

Basically annual sports games (FIFA being an exception) are left out. i think the main reason is easy to guess.

I am no sure what you mean, what is easy to guess?

[NikeBlitz]

Well, the open nature of a PC which means modding, easily customization ect ...

Imagine Madden NFL 12 on PC, you would have more authentic cleats, new nike uniforms 10 days after their unveiling instead of 4-5 months in Madden 13, accurate cyberface, tatoos, updated rosters, stadiums, helmets and so on ... for how many potential buyers this & the old franchise mode would have been enough to skip Madden 13 or wait a few months ?

[Nza]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skyboxer

Either way I seriously doubt 2K sold 1 million digital versions. Which would still be under the total amount of 360 or PS3 sales.

No doubt. But I don't think anyone suggested it rivaled the major console sales. You don't have to be at that level to be profitable for a port - as a port mostly relies on what was already developed and hence its costs are much lower.

[Nza]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trick13

...The articles I have read seem to suggest, correct me if I am wrong, that the development of games for the new consoles will be much easier because the "base" of the hardware is more like a PC....

What they would be referring to is Sony's confirmation that the PS4 will be based on an X86 CPU architecture, which all major desktop PCs are also based on. The 360 was as well, so it seems natural for Microsoft to follow suit again.

Or maybe not. Microsoft made Windows 8, which is rumored to be the OS the next Xbox will be heavily based on, ARM compatible. ARM is a competing architecture to X86, and is what you typically see in mobile and handheld devices. I think it's a major outside shot that the next Xbox is ARM based, as there just isn't a fast enough ARM chip yet, but it is a possibility. Perhaps not this next Xbox but the one after - Nvidia claim in a few years their Tegra series of ARM processors will be 100x the speed they are today (although by this time I suspect consoles will be in a position to be made redundant as consumers start buying mobile hardware capable of the same gaming experience).

The real opportunity for PC ports (if you could call it that - plenty PC gamers never touch them) is the aforementioned OS for the next Xbox. If it is heavily Windows 8 based, then games could be very easy to port across to PC. If Microsoft really wanted to, they could make the next Xbox games work out-of-the-box on both Xbox and PC, from the same media - entirely in the realm of possibility. However I tend to doubt they will do this, but I suspect they will dip their toe by making the next equivalent to the Xbox Arcade completely platform transparent.

[Skyboxer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nza

No doubt. But I don't think anyone suggested it rivaled the major console sales. You don't have to be at that level to be profitable for a port - as a port mostly relies on what was already developed and hence its costs are much lower.

But that in itself is what makes the PC version less than desirable for "older" PC gamers.
When I got 2K Baseball and realized they didn't even have a printing option I just shook my head.
So while it may be cheaper to port ..it's a cheap watered down version when compared to the glory PC sports gaming years.

Heck I still have recaps, stats etc.. from FP FBPro in my desk...

[Nza]

Yeah - like I mentioned, some PC gamers won't touch anything that is a port, and simply play any cross platform ported games on a console instead (or miss them altogether), leaving their PC gaming to the pure PC developed games.

Although that is increasingly harder to do these days and in some cases ports can be fairly decent.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nza

Yeah - like I mentioned, some PC gamers won't touch anything that is a port, and simply play any cross platform ported games on a console instead (or miss them altogether), leaving their PC gaming to the pure PC developed games. Although that is increasingly harder to do these days and in some cases ports can be fairly decent.

That differentiation is coming to an end as we move along. Consoles, anymore, are just PCs on a closed software platform. The only question mark, anymore, is hardware configuration. But with how mature the hardware market is anymore, that shouldn't be an excuse. I can understand when ATI and Nvidia were releasing drivers that made specific tweaks for games to increase performance. The market was very different.

Anymore, I'd wager that a studio's decision to support PC gaming is directly related to whether the effort is worth it. I highly doubt it has to do with compatibility, pirating, or control schemes. It comes down to whether the studio can make it financially viable. We're even seeing some studios release on PC first, then go to console (FFXIV, Diablo 3).

What's interesting is when you consider that FIFA 13 (EA Canada) is released on PC, but NHL 13 (EA Canada) is not. That alone tells you that it's not about resources or anything else other than market and whether they feel it's financially viable.

[Trick13]

If the architectures are going to be so similar - EA should make the games so that 720 users can compete against PS4 gamers and PC gamers...

I realize there are obstacles, but Skyrim you can mod on PC and then "save" that mod into 360 and thus use PC mods (granted only ones the 360 can handle) on your 360...