I've always hated that the underlying philosophy is to build a game that will run on the most PC's then just offering some slight graphics upgrades for the high end user. Build a kick butt game for a great PC and then have the lower end PC's disable functions if it can't handle them. Games like Crysis do this. That will really drive creativity and push the developers to really see what they can do. It's funny, EA Sports used to be known less than affectionately as EA Ports, for it's lack of innovation between console and PC games. I guess that 2k is no better. I agree totally with you. Build to the newest tech, which is normally the PC platform. Every 18 months the current console is totally out of date.
It's sad, but it's really about economics. The main money is thrown at consoles, based on sales and the lack of compatiblity issues. But it doesn't lead to innovation and setting up for what would be considered mainstream tech by the time the next console gen is ready to roll out. Heck, the PC market and the advances made with that hardware could help the developers to be involved in what they would need for the next gen of consoles to be equipped with to drive innovation in gaming. Instead, you have this trial and error approach, where developers get kits of possible final configs and have to go back to square one. Then we, the gamer get glorified betas for two years while they figure out what the hardware can actually do. Seems kind of backwards.....
