Serious question: Do PC game publishers do enough to optimize their product?

[courtesi96]

I can't help but wonder if todays game publishers go a little ape shit in regards to not paying attention to realistic system specifications. I know that PC technology is a running dart board but it seems like those who can't fork over the big bucks every 6 months are literally left with turning off a ton of options from the get go.

Do these programmers go, "ah fudge it - I don't have enough time to figure out how to make this efficient - let the consumer just buy a faster computer"?

Perhaps this is why the console ports will always continue to outsell the PC ports.

Any thoughts?

[izarate]

I'd think that with the advent of licenced PC centric engines for consoles this issue would go away, but sadly it hasn't. Still, I own a fairly good computer and it doesn't really bother me, but I can see your point.

Anyway, I always try to buy the PC version of games if I can find it, since they're (usually) cheaper and have more content. Sadly, only MS, Ubisoft and EA have direct distribution over here. There are some big importers that bring Sierra and Valve games too, but for the rest finding PC versions is a little tough.

[roushimsx]

I think that most developers do as well as they can with the amount of time allotted by the publishers, but sometimes there's just not enough time for proper QA. You know, test the hell out of the title and squash all of the major bugs or maybe they're using some sort of middleware (or combination of multiple pieces of middleware) that they just haven't got the time to rewrite to the point of being better optimized for their game. Not everyone is 3D Realms, Epic Megagames or id, afterall.

Crytek did a pretty impressive job with optimizing Crysis Warhead after the outcry against Crysis' relatively high system requirements, but it seems kind of silly in hindsight to complain about how a beautiful game that ran well at medium settings was poorly optimized because it wouldn't run smoothly in the absolutely highest possible settings on the common hardware at the time.

By the same token, what the fuck happened to Alone in the Dark on 360/PC/PS2/Whatever? It's great that Eden Games got the opportunity to go back and rework it for PS3 (apparently transforming it from shit to "ok"), but seriously...god damn. I have yet to experience the wonders of the Wii version, but I hear that it's legendary. Now if only the PC version would get updated with the improvements to the PS3 version...mmmm....

[Poofta!]

it was always like this... ive been seriously PC gaming for probably 18 years now...

and truth is, you dont need a new rig every 6 months. i built mine for 600$ over a year ago and am now running fallout 3 with almost everything maxed (on vista) without any issues at all.

i say let programmers go "apeshit" (which i dont believe they do...) and give us the most advanced, beautiful and colossal games they can on the pc (did you see the new system reqs for gta iv --- 18gb HD space!) to give us the fastest, smoothest and prettiest experience possible. if you want the cheap way go to consoles.

[SegaAges]

The thing I like about pc gaming is that consoles can only go so far. pc games can continually push bounderies and limits. Yes, it requires more hardware, but I am still using my old radeon x1600pro and it runs games just fine. I got it back when they first started coming out.

It is the same thing as consoles if you think about it.

You have a standard crt television that is, what, lets say 27 inches. You get a 360. You just got the short end of the staff because in order to truly experience the game, you need a $1000 television. give me $1000 for my pc and it will make every game in its path cry from it being so badass.

Games on pc go for 40-50, while ps3 and 360 games go for 50-60. you get 10 games for 360, well that is 100 more than what i would pay if i got them for pc.

i think that in the end, the pc is by far more robust, but when it comes to price, it really equals out.