TR Forums

These days the same game is available on different platforms with the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 being the most popular. What pisses me off to no end is how gamers with multiple hardware platforms (I own both PS3 and Xbox 360 and I am sure plenty of console gamers like to game on their PCs too) are forced to choose. Why should I have to pay $120 for the same game just coz I want to game on my PC and my PS3??? I am facing this stupid conundrum with Rage, Deus Ex and Need for Speed: The Run. I want the freedom of being able to game wherever I want to. Every platform has its pros and cons. I want the flexibility to switch between the no-hassle gameplay on a console to the eye-candy afforded by a decent gaming PC. Valve did the RIGHT THING by including a code for the PC version of Portal 2 in their PS3 version of the same game. This is what needs to be done more often. Otherwise, the current practice just reeks of greed. How can other gamers not find this infuriating?

I'd do something like gamefly for the ps3 and buy pc games as you see.

That way you can play both systems. You also can just buy the ps3 game and resell it when you don't like it anymore on ebay or something.

I am a PC guy only, and the last console I had was the Super Nintendo. After finding the ability to mod a PC game with either trainers, mods, cheap DLC packs or other software extras, I just couldn't go back to being locked down on a console that offers none of those options.

Also, its a LOT cheaper to support only one platform. Buying an Xbox or PS3 that will be replaced by a newer console in 4+ years time cuts into the PC upgrade budget, and also the new console relegates the old one (and the 40+ games you bought for it) to an Ebay or CraigsList sell-off at a massive loss. I'm not saying the PC isn't a huge expenditure as well, but I'd rather upgrade just one system rather than 2 or 3.

I guess most people just don't place much emphasis on it. As a PC and PS3 owner, I don't see the point. I can only play one copy of one game at a time, and when I want to play that game, I use the specific hardware for which the copy of that game was designed. *shrug*

Walkintarget wrote:

I am a PC guy only, and the last console I had was the Super Nintendo. After finding the ability to mod a PC game with either trainers, mods, cheap DLC packs or other software extras, I just couldn't go back to being locked down on a console that offers none of those options.

Consoles do have DLC and software extras, you know....

Walkintarget wrote:

Also, its a LOT cheaper to support only one platform. Buying an Xbox or PS3 that will be replaced by a newer console in 4+ years time cuts into the PC upgrade budget, and also the new console relegates the old one (and the 40+ games you bought for it) to an Ebay or CraigsList sell-off at a massive loss. I'm not saying the PC isn't a huge expenditure as well, but I'd rather upgrade just one system rather than 2 or 3.

I can tell you haven't had a console since Super Nintendo. The current crop of consoles is going on 7 years and will likely last at least another year or so. I'd rather spend $299-$399 once every 5-7 years to buy a new console than play the never-ending PC upgrade game. And why do you need to sell your old console games, they don't suddenly become useless overnight.

Vrock wrote:

Walkintarget wrote:

I am a PC guy only, and the last console I had was the Super Nintendo. After finding the ability to mod a PC game with either trainers, mods, cheap DLC packs or other software extras, I just couldn't go back to being locked down on a console that offers none of those options.

Consoles do have DLC and software extras, you know....

Walkintarget wrote:

Also, its a LOT cheaper to support only one platform. Buying an Xbox or PS3 that will be replaced by a newer console in 4+ years time cuts into the PC upgrade budget, and also the new console relegates the old one (and the 40+ games you bought for it) to an Ebay or CraigsList sell-off at a massive loss. I'm not saying the PC isn't a huge expenditure as well, but I'd rather upgrade just one system rather than 2 or 3.

I can tell you haven't had a console since Super Nintendo. The current crop of consoles is going on 7 years and will likely last at least another year or so. I'd rather spend $299-$399 once every 5-7 years to buy a new console than play the never-ending PC upgrade game. And why do you need to sell your old console games, they don't suddenly become useless overnight.

Current crop of PC games looks much better than console version which run on 6 year old hardware. Of course having a larger gaming PC e-peen is also important to some (including me).

Current crop of PC games looks much better than console version which run on 6 year old hardware.

I think it's very telling that it took 6 years for that to happen.

What I am hoping for a game developer to stumble upon is:

1. Make thy game as see fit
2. Put a redeemable code in said game
3. If customer buys said game on a specific system, have the code give a discount on another game platform and have the last saved spot in said game the starting point on either of the systems.

If the code is only redeemable once or twice I don't think that is really a problem. But if I could buy SKyrim for the PC (but the PC is in the basement and I would like to play it in the living room on the PS3 for a little bit), and pay . . . . . say . . . . . half price for the PS3 version using that code and have the game start up where I left off on either platform, that would be a serious winning combination for me. I have not bought Skyrim yet, cause I don't know which platform I want it on. The basement is not a very cosy place and I can't hear what's going on around me down there. But yet I know I will get a better experience if I play it on the PC.

AAAAAHHHHH PHOEEY!!!!

SPOOFE wrote:

Current crop of PC games looks much better than console version which run on 6 year old hardware.

I think it's very telling that it took 6 years for that to happen.

It didn't. Still, being able to just sit down and play a game optimized for the console hardware is way easier than playing a game on a 6-year-old top-of-the-line PC. Plus, I can just sit on the couch and play. Most of my gaming is console-based, though a few PC games continue to get me to buy a new video card now and again. The last one was a GTX 460 this past spring.

That said, the thought in the OP has never crossed my mind. Including more than one format isn't a new concept at all, but it's far from the rule. Remember that when you buy a console game, you're paying the console platform owner's royalty (Sony, MS, or Nintendo). Why would I want to pay that knowing I'd never use it?

Also, I think Valve probably made a mistake including the PC version with the PS3 version. I sold the PS3 version of Portal 2 after redeeming the PC version's code.

Synchromesh wrote:

Current crop of PC games looks much better than console version which run on 6 year old hardware.

I'm not arguing that.

Synchromesh wrote:

Of course having a larger gaming PC e-peen is also important to some (including me).

That's.....well, whatever.

Attach your computer to your TV, that's what my friend did. Hell a lot of current basteridized ports have Xbox 360 controller support available in windows and it works better then a keyboard and a mouse too (for those specific titles).

It's all about greed though. X360 and PS3 are just computers with their own distribution system. If they take that away, people can start the bridge the gap between a computer being in it's own room and having one in their living room they will loose their edge and consoles and computers will collide. They really do see this and try their hardest to avoid the perception that their consoles are just computers in the living room. I remove Wii from this comparison because I think Nintendo has been striving to keep their system completely unique. That's why we see a lot of fun party games on their systems, but it's not something you'd play hardcore.

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

These days the same game is available on different platforms with the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 being the most popular. What pisses me off to no end is how gamers with multiple hardware platforms (I own both PS3 and Xbox 360 and I am sure plenty of console gamers like to game on their PCs too) are forced to choose.

This actually makes you angry? That you have a choice between three decent gaming platforms for a wide range of games?

Why should I have to pay $120 for the same game just coz I want to game on my PC and my PS3???

You don't have to do anything of the sort. Pick the platform you like best for that particular game and buy that one. There are tons of review sites online to help you choose, and a variety of ways to rent games if you're unsure. On the other hand, if you choose to have the game for multiple consoles, then yeah - you've gotta buy it multiple times.

I am facing this stupid conundrum with Rage, Deus Ex and Need for Speed: The Run.

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as rising to the level of conundrum. For me, the fact that I can buy such a wide range of games regardless of which platform I happen to own (some people only have one, believe it or not) is a pretty cool thing. And sure, some games are better on some platforms. But it's really not that big of a deal.

There are plenty of ways that you can rent games for fairly cheap, or trade games, or whatever.

derFunkenstein wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:

Current crop of PC games looks much better than console version which run on 6 year old hardware.

I think it's very telling that it took 6 years for that to happen.

It didn't.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "Crysis". Da-a-a-a-ah.

I just see it as silly to see people harp on "six year old hardware" when what they're really doing is "bragging" that they get less lifetime out of their preferred platform.

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

These days the same game is available on different platforms with the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 being the most popular. What pisses me off to no end is how gamers with multiple hardware platforms (I own both PS3 and Xbox 360 and I am sure plenty of console gamers like to game on their PCs too) are forced to choose. Why should I have to pay $120 for the same game just coz I want to game on my PC and my PS3??? I am facing this stupid conundrum with Rage, Deus Ex and Need for Speed: The Run. I want the freedom of being able to game wherever I want to. Every platform has its pros and cons. I want the flexibility to switch between the no-hassle gameplay on a console to the eye-candy afforded by a decent gaming PC. Valve did the RIGHT THING by including a code for the PC version of Portal 2 in their PS3 version of the same game. This is what needs to be done more often. Otherwise, the current practice just reeks of greed. How can other gamers not find this infuriating?

This isn't just a console/pc thing. It's also very prevalent on the PC itself. We have brick n mortar, amazon, steam, impulse, d2d, gamersgate, etc, and none of them support multiple methods of ownership. The only system so far that I've seen get it right is the Humble Bundle. Drm free, cross platform, steam option. That's how all games need to be released, and no brick n mortal sales should be tied to an account so you can resell them.

SPOOFE wrote:

Yeah, yeah, I know, "Crysis". Da-a-a-a-ah.

I just see it as silly to see people harp on "six year old hardware" when what they're really doing is "bragging" that they get less lifetime out of their preferred platform.

I see it as silly that people want to get more lifetime out of their hardware by slowing down the industry as a whole. There are multiple quality settings for a reason. Someone who has a six year old computer doesn't need to be able to play the newest game on Ultra and they shouldn't expect or feel that they are entitled to it.

I see it as silly that people want to get more lifetime out of their hardware by slowing down the industry as a whole.

Which just leads me to wonder what you think is slowing down the industry.

There are multiple quality settings for a reason.

Yeah, there are a lot more variables to take into account in the PC market.

Someone who has a six year old computer doesn't need to be able to play the newest game on Ultra and they shouldn't expect or feel that they are entitled to it.

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for PC gaming.

SPOOFE wrote:

Someone who has a six year old computer doesn't need to be able to play the newest game on Ultra and they shouldn't expect or feel that they are entitled to it.

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for PC gaming.

I disagree. If anything the flexibility offerred by graphical settings of PC games is in of itself an endorsement for PC gaming. If you are not a PC "enthusiast" or hard-core gamer and don't want/can't justify a state of the art gaming PC purchase every couple of years then at the end of your PC's longer life cycle you are still able to play new games, albeit with "console" level eye candy. However, for those that do have the latest and greatest, they can get a little more visual satisfaction out of the same game. And when you do upgrade your PC, you can always go back and see what you were missing.

It is the mediocrity imposed by the design-for-consoles mentality that has perhaps taken some of the wind out of PC gaming, not the other way around. Companies like Crytek should be applauded for pushing the technical envelope. After all, you could still play Crysis on medium or low settings with a modest computer when it came out. I did. The fact of the matter is that a game like Crisis on medium settings looks at least as good as a run-of-the-mill console port. It just has the flexibility for those with more horsepower to take advantage of. Yet at the end of the day Crytek got flack for having higher graphics settings because of the egos of some people being hurt for not being able to run the game at Ultra settings... As a result, we got the watered-down schlock that is Crysis 2 - almost a case of some people getting what they asked for and then complaining about it.

Aye, it's ridiculous how many people think Ultra is the ONLY setting. Like people always look to the popular example of Crysis and state how it brought all machines to a hault and you couldn't play it without a fifteen-hundred dollar computer. Oblivion, Half-Life: Source, Unreal Tournament in its various forms, Quake, and Crysis ALL have been playable on the hardware that was available at the time on medium settings and low on computers that were older then that.

People DON'T want to play it on low, only ULTRA, because ULTRA has become a baseline... Ultra isn't a baseline, it's ULTRA; designed to push every single piece of hardware to its max and possibly then some (like Crysis and Oblivion when they first came out). Medium is a baseline.

Like I said, this whole argument is an argument for entitlement. People want to feel good about buying a game and getting everything out of it without ever putting more money into an existing system. They feel cheated if they can't do that and therefore they always feel entitled to have the very best. Yet, they're cheating themselves out of a better looking game if they ever upgrade their system.

The difference is only a play on words. ULTRA could very well look like medium settings in another game, yet you wouldn't have the epeen stroking sensation of having it on Ultra. This was a popular argument when Rift came out and everyone who played WoW was complaining about how their six year old computer, which could run WoW perfectly fine on the best settings(!!!!) couldn't run Rift on medium settings. Obviously Rift should've toned down the eye candy.

It's really quite ass backwards and is a testament to short sighted thinking in this day in age. Not to pick specifically on the one person in this thread, but I've met tons of people that think like this.

Bull. Ultra used to mean something, but now all it means is bloat. People are sick of bloat and want optimized graphics, not crysis2 tessellation. That's not an argument for entitlement, that's an argument for efficiency and quality. For example, look at Rage. People are pissed because the game doesn't properly take advantage of the higher amounts of memory available on the PC, not because they can't run it on some arbitrary "Ultra" setting.

Another thing, a lot of PC games do not look good, and are poorly optimized for medium settings. Example: Metro 2033 turned all the decent lighting effects off unless you used "Very High". I can only think of a few games that have pulled off medium settings: Half-Life2, UT2004, Doom3. Quality medium setting games are hard to come across, and because of that I'm quite happy playing console ports. So if anyone wonders why console ports sell so well, there you have it. Console ports sell well because they look and play good on mid-range cards, whereas modern "Ultra" PC games like Metro/Crysis don't. Mid-range is a market segment you shouldn't ignore, and doing so will only diminish PC gaming as a whole. That's why Crysis did lousy. They didn't optimize for mid-range, and the game was completely unplayable on slower systems. Hell, the game was unplayable on release unless you had SLI. Back in the 3dfx days you didn't do that. You had a texture resolution limit of 256. What would've happened if you released a game that had 1024, and didn't support 256 at all? No sales. That's essentially what Crysis did. Pushing the envelope farther than the current generation can support is bad policy plain and simple, and there still is no guarantee the next generation will be able to cover for it.

I agree. Not that I find it is something that could be forced upon publishers, but yeah, I kind of bought the game, whatever platform I wish to play it on shouldn't matter. Maybe I wanna play it on my PC, while the girlfriend fancies the console..

So... console ports (as a whole, no other reason) sell well because they're based on consoles? Like every port in existence? I'm not even sure how to quantify the meaning of that statement. Not just the numbers, but how you logically came up with the idea that ports sell well in general and that they all sell well simply because they're ports.

Crysis didn't have good sales because the gameplay sucked. Crysis 2 is pretty much Crysis only it's made for consoles and that didn't sell well either. Your entire argument was just shot to pieces by your own example. You really do pull all sorts of things out of your bumm when you start trying to formulate a cohesive argument game... It's like half truths, complete crap, random things you heard at one time that are a good representation of a strawman (your 3DFX statement), and an attempt at a powerful conclusion that should make people disregard everything you just said and believe you.

"People are pissed because the game doesn't properly take advantage of the higher amounts of memory available on the PC, not because they can't run it on some arbitrary "Ultra" setting."

That doesn't even make sense. One is inclusive in the other. Ultra can entirely involve more system or graphical memory... Ultra isn't 'arbitrary'. In the context of the argument taking place here, were discussing how games no longer have a setting that actually pushes hardware and people like Spoofe are saying that's good... but in the end they're losing out because it's entirely possible to have a medium setting which is made for mainstream computers or 'consolized. It's present in BF3 today...


Lets work on the word 'subjective'. Perhaps Metro 2033 doesn't look as good on medium settings as on very high because after seeing very high you know what the game looks like with all the eye candy turned on and of course, it doesn't look as good on medium. Yet consoles can't play Metro 2033 on very high. They can only handle about medium. So if you had your way, very high and high settings simply wouldn't exist for Metro 2033. That is the loss we are talking about.

A well optimized game is one thing, making a game for six year old hardware and attempting to squeeze every last ounce out of the available hardware very quickly approaches diminishing returns. For how much work they put into Rage, does it look any better or run better then the UT3 engine that's already available for consoles? No. Why do you think the UT4 engine was pushed back from 2005-2008 to 2012-2018?!!? That coincides nicely with the estimates for the next consoles to arrive.

This is all about entitlement; the perception that you can have next generation graphics on six year old hardware. It doesn't happen. Nothing has changed. That's what consolization did. Even Oblivion, which pushed computers for two years after it came out (on the highest settings), is now followed by Skyrim, which can be run on ULTRA on a computer made 2-3 years ago. There is overlap in there...

This isn't just about graphics either, it's about load times, wide open environments, physics processing (which is almost non-existant in any console port), and changing the scale of video games as a whole from tiny little corridor battles.

I just buy all of the cross-platform stuff I want on Steam. There are few reasons for me to keep my XBox360 these days.

I'm likely to still own a Steam-compatible PC in ten years from now, but I can't see myself with a back-catalogue of old consoles.

If you buy ANY game, you buy it for the life of the platform. I can still run Doom and Quake. Can you still (legally) run Tekken3?

Chrispy_ wrote:

Can you still (legally) run Tekken3?

Err, yes?

I mean, I'm not going to argue that Tekken shouldn't be illegal, mind you , but the government isn't running around confiscating playstations.

Not to mention every PS3 has backwards-compatibility with PS1 games.

#firstworldproblems

...Or that Tekken 3 Arcade was included in Tekken 5 for the PS2.

His statement about Tekken 3 was seriously weird.

Vrock wrote:

Walkintarget wrote:

I am a PC guy only, and the last console I had was the Super Nintendo. After finding the ability to mod a PC game with either trainers, mods, cheap DLC packs or other software extras, I just couldn't go back to being locked down on a console that offers none of those options.

Consoles do have DLC and software extras, you know....

Yeah they do, but the PC has a lot more. There's no way (that I know of) to engage with the enthusiast modding community on my PS3 or 360 and upgrade or change the textures in a game, add some of the fully voiced and scripted characters people have created, add to or change the in game music, or any of the literally thousands of other options out there. Some of them are not that great, some upset the game balance or mechanics, but the really good ones add a lot to the experience and sense of immersion without disrupting the game at all, the kind of stuff you wish the devs had dome from the start.

I have all the platforms, and I prefer to get the PC version for the most part when there's the option. I liked playing my consoles a lot more a couple of years ago, but the games are looking very dated to me at this point. I don't get too wound up about not being able to move from one system to another, but the one thing that is getting on my nerves is being forced to play Mass Effect 3 on my 360 because that's where my saved games are. I should at least have the option of moving my saves to another platform so I can choose where to play the sequel.

reply to bensam's almost off-topic comments:
So... console ports (as a whole, no other reason) sell well because they're based on consoles? Like every port in existence? I'm not even sure how to quantify the meaning of that statement. Not just the numbers, but how you logically came up with the idea that ports sell well in general and that they all sell well simply because they're ports.
What I said makes sense. Do you know why you don't get it? You want to justify ridiculous "Ultra" settings as the only viable setting to play PC games on, and completely ignore all mid-range rigs. It doesn't work like that. I didn't say console ports sell well because they're console ports, as much as I was explaining that console ports played well and looked well on mid-range, and that's why they sell. Same thing with WOW, and casual games. Why do those games sell? Because they don't throw out an entire segment of the market, and they focus on gameplay and not graphics. Comprehende?
Crysis didn't have good sales because the gameplay sucked.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Crysis sucked because nobody had a rig that could play it on release. Read some graphics card reviews. The gameplay was fine, but no single card could play the game even on high. I'd even argue that those cards did not exist until after dx10.1/11 and quad core CPU's came out. Crysis2 is nothing like Crysis. The engine is different, and so is the game. Not a viable comparison.
(your 3DFX statement)
Do you, or do you not understand my 3DFX example? 3dfx cards had a physical texture resolution limitation of 256, and releasing a game back then that did not support it was suicide. That's no different than what Crysis did.
That doesn't even make sense. One is inclusive in the other.
No it isn't. It can be, but there is no rule making it so. Ultra just means a game is bloated to infinity for the sake of bloat now. That's what Crysis2's dx11 pack did, and it's also how most Physx titles work.
Ultra isn't 'arbitrary'.
It is arbitrary. Do you even know what arbitrary means? "Ultra" is arbitrary because there is no standard for it. Game developers just make some massively bloated setting and call it Ultra just for the sake of having it there. Most of the time, it's bloat and not better graphics. Rarely efficient or optimized.
In the context of the argument taking place here, were discussing how games no longer have a setting that actually pushes hardware and people like Spoofe are saying that's good... but in the end they're losing out because it's entirely possible to have a medium setting which is made for mainstream computers or 'consolized. It's present in BF3 today...
That's one game, not all games. There is no standard forcing game developers to optimize for mid-range, other than being a console port. Consoles are the only equalizer.
Lets work on the word 'subjective'. Perhaps Metro 2033 doesn't look as good on medium settings as on very high because after seeing very high you know what the game looks like with all the eye candy turned on and of course, it doesn't look as good on medium. Yet consoles can't play Metro 2033 on very high. They can only handle about medium. So if you had your way, very high and high settings simply wouldn't exist for Metro 2033. That is the loss we are talking about.
No. Metro was custom optimized for consoles, not directly ported from medium pc settings. It was optimized to run as much eye candy as possible on those rigs. There was no such optimization on the PC. Rage was the same way. Apparently the game looks better on consoles than PC, because there were more optimizations for the console. Crysis (1) also got a port to consoles, and it looks vastly superior to the "medium" settings allowed on the PC, despite running dx9 class hardware. I read an article on it the other day in gameinformer, and that's pretty much what it said. It looks good on consoles, which is a complete slap in the face to mid-range PC owners.
A well optimized game is one thing, making a game for six year old hardware and attempting to squeeze every last ounce out of the available hardware very quickly approaches diminishing returns.
How about making a game optimized for one year old hardware, the steam hardware survey, or hardware that even physically exists *cough* Crysis *cough*. Diminishing returns? How about diminishing sales. You don't optimize for mid-range, you don't make sales. "Enthusiasts" are a very small segment of the market, and they aren't going to financially keep a game company afloat, aside from initially charging $100+ per copy. Good luck fighting piracy.
This is all about entitlement; the perception that you can have next generation graphics on six year old hardware. It doesn't happen. Nothing has changed. That's what consolization did. Even Oblivion, which pushed computers for two years after it came out (on the highest settings), is now followed by Skyrim, which can be run on ULTRA on a computer made 2-3 years ago. There is overlap in there...
This isn't just about graphics either, it's about load times, wide open environments, physics processing (which is almost non-existant in any console port), and changing the scale of video games as a whole from tiny little corridor battles.
Waaah, standardization. QQ. Somebody call a wahmbulance. /sarcasm
Joking aside, far cry had all those features, and played well on mid-range. You don't need to build a game for non-existent hardware for it to be a "PC" game. Also, some console games do have those features, albeit few. Throwing an entire segment of the market out the windows is just stupid and it hurts everyone, so congratulations on supporting the destruction of PC gaming. You probably aren't going to see another Crysis, considering the initial failure that it was. Publishers realize that there is no market for those shenanigans, and overall the market dictates how games are going to be made. Have fun complaining about what is obviously an improvement, and will not change despite your efforts. Money talks, bullspit walks, that's how life goes. Deus Ex is a good example of what you should start expecting to see from now on.

leor wrote:

I have all the platforms, and I prefer to get the PC version for the most part when there's the option. I liked playing my consoles a lot more a couple of years ago, but the games are looking very dated to me at this point. I don't get too wound up about not being able to move from one system to another, but the one thing that is getting on my nerves is being forced to play Mass Effect 3 on my 360 because that's where my saved games are. I should at least have the option of moving my saves to another platform so I can choose where to play the sequel.

Now if only we can get steam's cloud save system to work with consoles.... Don't see why not.

SPOOFE wrote:

Which just leads me to wonder what you think is slowing down the industry.

Money.

1. Lazy or frightened developers who can't be bothered to optimize for PC, because
2. Indifferent gamers are buying the same things in droves on consoles, which devolves into a giant echo chamber where
3. Lazy investors and purse-string holders refuse to throw cash at anything that doesn't guarantee a return of $Texas, so
4. In order to get money, companies at large continue to make the "safe bet" of Generic Military Shooter MCMXVIII, and contract it out to
5. GOTO 1

/tongue planted firmly in cheek

Uh, I mean, it's all the fault of the CoD players and filthy casual console peasants, rabble rabble rabble.

If anything the flexibility offerred by graphical settings of PC games is in of itself an endorsement for PC gaming.

Oh, really? I didn't know that! Holy cow! Why didn't anyone tell me before? I thought a PC is a PC is a PC, and that there's only one kind and style and design, with a single hardware setup, everywhere in the universe!

... Or, maybe, it's as I described earlier: "Lots of variables to take into account". And this flexibility you describe isn't worth much if it's expired after a couple years (exact time depending on how much you initially invest).

It is the mediocrity imposed by the design-for-consoles mentality that has perhaps taken some of the wind out of PC gaming, not the other way around.

No, PC gaming took its own wind. I remember the late '90s, and I remember every symptom of "consolitis" existing even then. I remember gamers regularly complaining about how devs just "focus on graphics and not gameplay". I remember that Daikatana was NOT a console game!

FubbHead wrote:

I agree. Not that I find it is something that could be forced upon publishers, but yeah, I kind of bought the game, whatever platform I wish to play it on shouldn't matter. Maybe I wanna play it on my PC, while the girlfriend fancies the console..

I think you and the OP are ignoring the different dev teams required for each platform and the additional resources invested in bringing the game to multiple platforms. So it makes perfect sense that you'd pay for each platform separately.