Locknuts said:
TheObserver said:
I think you're missing some important factors here. PC is only good for better performance granted you spend enough.
But the things that we would lose out on with no consoles would not be worth the trade off. The only reason publishers are able to invest in AAA games is because of the console market, look at the PC exclusoves that come out, those are not the games that even need powerful hardware they're all small small budget titles that could run on a PS2.
Then there's also the fact that we would lose out on a large number of games that come out because console owners fund them so they can make their consoles more appealing to various demographics even if they might be financially damaging by themselves. Sony recently stated that only 4 out of 10 of their games make a profit which is used to pay of the development of the other 6. No company is going to fund projects with that philosophy for the PC.
So yeah, I think a few drops in framerate are pretty inconsiquential in comparison to all the positives the consoles provide gamers with.
|
So I should play inferior versions of AAA games in order to ensure the future of AAA titles? I don't think so. Consoles will be fine without little old me, and the publishers will still get their money as I do actually buy my games.
|
I wasn't talking about you, just in general. I just think it's more important that we get more unique games with decent budgets than make sure they're all 60fps. And consoles are the reason we get AAA games. Without consoles we'd be playing indies on our $1000 gaming rigs.
