PC vs Console Hardware

[S.T.A.G.E.]

JayWood2010 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

JayWood2010 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

The correct answer to any PC vs console specs question is who gives a shit? Most of the top games are being developed with console budgets, not PC. PC should be glad to get them. When a PC game gets lead development then that will be a focus of conversation and hopefully that PC game stays exclusive. As for console games put on the PC who cares if it isn't optimized?

console budgets? lol  ummm no lol  

Man i really dislike some of your comments.  

Thats perfectly fine. Lets have the same developers make a game exclusively for PC then with the same costs.

Crysis, Metro, Battlefield, and Witcher.  There you go.  All scaled down for consoles.  That really wasnt hard to do.

I doubt it was, since PC by nature is where most of these games are developed, question is how far are they scaled out. My point is few PC exclusives yield fruits for such risk so I'd rather third parties not take that risk at all outside of a handful of name brands that have proven themselves to PC gamers. Battlefield has been on PC since before the gen started. I was in a clan when I was younger since 1942, I know that (Basically around the time I stopped PC gaming competitively as a in grade school). I knew the Witcher was coming to consoles with heavy hitters like Mass Effect, Dragon Age and similar RPG's were around, it was just a matter of when. CD Projekt Red needed the extra money to reinvest into other projects. Crysis....well...that game deserved to stay on PC because it is shining example of what Cryteks view of what PC gaming stands for. A game made for the hardware of the 2% if its played properly (back in 2007). Nvidia must've loved how many PC gamers came running after Crysis launched to upgrade their PC's into ungodly beasts. 

Amazing what Crytek has turned into over a gen.....just because of a little bit of money.