A port too far.

[Hawk Firestorm]

Here we all are we stumped up our cash all excited expecting a great PC game and from what I've seen so far all I'm seeing is a game for consoles. :(

From the UI to the gameplay and many of the key features of the orginal. like free navigation you name it, all seem to have died in the attempt (rather foolish one) to make this console friendly.

I've never seen any game for either platform that ended well when it wasn't designed for the platform it was going on, the target audiences tastes are utterly different.

Or to put it this way, you may like water, I may like scotch, try mix em and you end up with watered down scotch and who in hell likes that?

While it is possible to converge many aspects of the game to make it compatible for many platforms there's a limit, and you guys have gone way past it as have many before you, to the point that the quality of the product is suffering because of it.

The PC has and always will be the higher bar of the two and for a game like this its where you should be aiming, the vast majority of those that this game appeals to in the first place started out there, many of them are techheads like myself and they simply won't go for yet another DA2 fiasco expecting sonic the hedgehog lumping over the nearest horizon at any moment.

Expectations are very high, and you have the rare opportunity to make a classic than can spawn a whole series of games or make a utter lemon, there's no middle ground here, so far I'm seeing too much yellow, from the controls to the gameplay, its very light on the strategy part and leans heavily towards the 'thumb wagglers'.

If you guys want to make a console version all well and good but the pc version should have some game enhancements and its UI catered for that platform and the console theirs other than that the two should meet as little as possible as they are utterely incompatible.

I could be wrong but I sincerly doubt there's any Xbox or PS3 users here that came forth with their cash upfront expecting you to be making a console game.

[Appogee]

I'm no fan of consolisation either, but your post seems a little harsh.

Aside from the radial menu and the auto aim - both of which are optional and which we don't need to use - what specifically about CCGM seems overly constrained by the console platform?

This is still a beta, with many unimplemented features. But from what we already see, I suspect our strategy appetites will be served by large maps, a variety of islands and potential attack strategies, tech tree unlocks etc.

And from a controls perspective, I can't really see how the vehicles should be controlled or handle all that much differently to how they do now?

[Dajunka]

I myself was I little miffed at this.

You wait 20+ years for a remake of a classic and then one comes along that holds true to the classic. You are elated, and then you find out that it is to be a crappy console port. Why do this to a grand classic? Do it to a zhitty game by all means, but not Carrier command.

As for controls they seem to be mainly optimized for the poxy x-box controller. It's a shame that it's all about money these days and no love nor respect for the game.
Console ports never reach their full potential.

[Hawk Firestorm]

Harsh I don't think so.

The UI, the lack of free navigation, and many of the subtle and important strategy elements of the original just aren't there. (Or indeed been expanded upon to reflect users increased expectations of depth)

It kind of feels like someone went hmm carrier command, went out did the lovely graphics etc but didn't understand the subtle elements of the originals design that added to the strategic play, never mind to expand on it for todays audience.

This game should have been aimed squarely at BI's existing user base, its precisely the audience that it would appeal to in the first place.

I understand BI trying to market the game into the Console market, and there's nothing stopping them but the PC version should be the high water mark and ported from there to the console not the other way around.

At the moment other than the graphics the gameplay is rather empty and devoid of any strategical depth, from free navigation and long range deployment, deployment on the move you name it many of the originals features aren't there, and yes its a beta, but from the way its been done it doesn't appear they will ever be there because of the attempts to converge the game to the console market.

This game was crying out for the PC, its the only platform with the power and input methods to make it with the depth it deserves.

At the moment there's far too much flash and no substance, as far as the gameplay and strategic elements of the game, it lacks a great deal of depth because its being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator that being the console.

I swear consoles have been the baine of this industry since their inception, I've not seen a 'classic' Pc game in about the last 10 years becasue of this inane and moronic idea of platform convergence, that you can mistically take 2 completely different target audiences and somehow magically make them co-exist and end up with a premium product at the end of it.

I'm expecting a deep and rich improvement of the original not a half baked console port, and the vast majority of those that hear the words carrier command will be too.

Someone should go put a watered down bottle of scotch on the CEO's desk and ask him if he likes it, I'm pretty sure he'll say no as will the vast majority that have been waiting for a remake of this game for decades.

Make quality, do the craft, the rest will take care of itself.

[Max Power]

It kind of feels like someone went hmm carrier command, went out did the lovely graphics etc but didn't understand the subtle elements of the originals design

You realize the original designer is involved...

[Hawk Firestorm]

Indeed I do, sadly it doesn't seem to have effected the games developement path in a positive manner from what I'm currently looking at.

I don't know if that's because he's been lured to the darkside ala consoles. heh

I'm sorry boys but the path your currently taking your out apple picking jumping up a pear tree.

Or to put it another way, the original holds a great palce in many peoples minds along with games like Homeworld, Wing commander you name it.

As is now you think people will be saying the same of this game in 10 years time??

If the answer is no then your going down the wrong path because the title most certainly has the scope for it.

And for me at this point he answer is sadly and absolutely no.

[Max Power]

Just so it's clear, I'm not a BI employee.

I guess since you're a pay and contribute beta owner, you could perhaps make some posts with some information in them and see what happens. I don't really see much in these particular posts to grab on to other than you're unhappy. No doubt the target audience was decided a long time ago and will not be changing. Perhaps if you give some feedback on smaller issues that are more likely to be tweaked in the future...

[Dajunka]

Well, I may not be very happy that this, of all games, is going to be a port. But I am also very glad that it is getting made, and, what I have seen so far is absolutely stunning. :love:

[Foxhound]

Just out of curiousity, did the controls change in the latest beta compared to the first? Cause I personally don't have a problem with the controls but have not played the newest beta yet. Of course a few things (like controling the carrier could be different) but overall after a little practise I managed the controls.


And nope, I am not a console player. I dont even own a console so its not like I like the way that controls, however that is ;)

[Dajunka]

No, they didn't. you still cannot remap your keyboard, or should I say, you can remap it but it does not work in game. You cannot add a normal joypad or joystick. But apparently is works great on a x-box controller. :mad:

[Foxhound]

Ah, is that all? This is a beta, I am sure the final version (or maybe even a future beta) will allow you to remap your keys correctly.
And if not........well than its something to complain about than :)

[ScareYa]

I am no friend of console ports either, but I do have to defend Carrier Command Gaea Mission in this matter. As Foxhound just said we are testing a Beta version. You should not expect all functions to work properly at this stage (for more information about this refer to Wikipedia: Software release life cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta)). The fact that a key binding is offered should show you that Bohemia Interactive knows about the need of a function like that for PC users.

There is another - strong - argument for the importance of PC and Carrier Command Gaea Mission:
The Beta is NOT available on any console! :biggrin:

[Appogee]

The Beta is NOT available on any console! :biggrin:This is a good point.

To those concerned about the consolification of Carrier Command... What specifically is missing or lacking? In what ways would the game be made more strategic to satisfy the needs of PC gamers?

[Dajunka]

Ah, is that all? This is a beta, I am sure the final version (or maybe even a future beta) will allow you to remap your keys correctly.
And if not........well than its something to complain about than :)

Yes, your right. I am nit-picking, and I shouldn't. CCGM is already one hell of a awesome game, and has gone beyond my expectations. It could have been a heck of a lot worse if some shabby software house had got hold of it, they could have butchered it completely.

I still hate ******** consoles though. :)

[MrSquid]

I agree that the UI is pretty clunky for a PC game. There's no reason we can't have, for example, all the carrier production functions on the screen at the same time as any of the other controls. Having to click the carrier piloting controls to bring up the production screens is weird. We're using PC's here! We should be able to pin the production or map window to a corner of the screen and keep it there!

Or we could really go nuts and have some multi-monitor joy, with the map on another screen entirely!

But I do have to say:

the path your currently taking your out apple picking jumping up a pear tree.
What? :p

[Jedra]

Most of Scotland prefer to take a little water with their whisky...

I wish people would not blame the ills of the world on consoles - it's not their fault - they are only bits of hardware in a plastic box (much like a PC, and in the case of the 360, very much like a PC). I'm afraid it is a cold hard fact that there are more people with games consoles than there are people with gaming PCs - of course this is going to affect the way publishers fund the development of games.

Now I have been playing games on consoles since the days of 'tennis' and 'PCs' since the UK101 and in this time I have seen some truly bad conversions (from arcade to console, PC to console, console to PC, console to console). I have also seem some dreadful 'made for all platforms' games too which have not worked well on any (I owned Dragon Age 2 on the PC and the 360 and it was truly awful on both!). I don't think this is one of them - in fact I think it works very well - I rather like playing it on my PC using the Xbox controller and in fact I would probably pick up a copy for the 360 when it is out, so I can play it with some of my friends who do not own a gaming PC.

I guess there have been some compromises along the way to make it 'multi platform' but to me they are not glaringly obvious nor are they badly implemented - it still feels smooth on the PC. Having said this, it being a beta there is still time to maybe add some PC specific stuff. The game is different to the usual type of games you find being made for the consoles, so if it sells well, perhaps we will see more publishers willing to fund more innovative types of games which will benefit the industry and us players as a whole.

[Hawk Firestorm]

I do agree there are some elements you can do to help make a product capable of being put to the console, but I'm seeing too much of it so far, to the point it degrades the game, the lack of free navigation for one.

Yes its beta, I'm fully aware of this and have done many many many betas before this one, however my concerns stem from where I see the game is currently heading, and sadly it appears so far while there are some good elements the base engineering of the gameplay is rather weak and lacks tactical depth.

The UI is clunky and unwieldy in many places and liveable in others as are the controls, but that aside there are some things that currently do the game injustace in many respects such as free navigation, the effect it has on strategic options for the player, as well as it appears there's too much being payed to the FPS side of the game and too little to the strategy side.

While the old game does invoke nostalgia, I'm also smart enough to know that if you just made a updated version with better graphics in todays market I don't think it would be a big success, peoples expectations have evolved and grown, the game needs alot more expansion in the gameplay and there's a massive scope in all areas from the 4x elements to the air/land/sea side that can be expanded on enourmously, and still offer a great deal of appeal to those that like FPS and blowing things up.

I wouldn't say the main reason is that devs develope games for consoles because there's more of them, there's more PC's about than there ever will be consoles, its more of a case that its easier to do so and as a result earns more cash, PC gamers are a pretty demanding bunch, and the platform has many variants and different hardware so its harder to do, over that of a unified platform.

As to it not having a effect on the industry or the populace at large well, I'd strongly disagree, 10-15 years ago you could pretty much get a game in every genre, nowdays its all FPS because of the impact of consoles, the quality of products being offered these days is rather poor as is the variety.

Looking at when this is supposed to be comming out the door and what I've seen so far yes I've deep concerns on whats going to be at the end of it, I find myself asking is this going to be better than the original or even better than hostile waters and well so far I'm thinking no, better graphics sure gameplay well...

[Gazzareth]

I guess there have been some compromises along the way to make it 'multi platform' but to me they are not glaringly obvious nor are they badly implemented - it still feels smooth on the PC. Having said this, it being a beta there is still time to maybe add some PC specific stuff. The game is different to the usual type of games you find being made for the consoles, so if it sells well, perhaps we will see more publishers willing to fund more innovative types of games which will benefit the industry and us players as a whole.

Completely right, the way things are these days there are going to be so many more sales of a game if it is available on the consoles, which makes it much more likely that BI will offer more content for the game later on. For the things that people don't like then use the Feedback system to say about it, you never know it may well get changed - it is STILL beta so you never know !!

G

[Toot]

I too project my false sense of self importance by bashing consoles at every opportunity

[gunso]

i think the real reason ppl hate consoles is because gamemakers limit the PC version to console capability. It's fine when the console is still new and quite powerful, but sucks when it pretty aged like nowadays.

[nww02]

Ports *can* be done well. GTA: San Vice city (I think) looked amazing on the PC, mediocre on the XBox, and meh on the PS2, but they all felt 'about right'.

I really fear that a decision will have to be made at some point which will go like this:-

Exec 1: "The P&C Beta has raised this one major issue. We can fix it on the PC by throwing more RAM at it, but the console port won't take it"
Exec 2: "Just leave it out of the console version, then"
Exec 1: "That's the problem, the playtesters tell us that this feature is a real killer, and could make the game awesome, and PC gamers will be 'WTF' when it's not there".
Exec 2: "Well, the console gamers will be "WTF" if it's only in the PC version, and we don't want two codebases, leave it out."

Perhaps the one-island-at-a-time issue might fall into this category already? I don't think BIS would do this though. OpFlash was awesome, ARMAII is awesome, so I have every confidence that CCGM will be awesome.

[gadgetmind]

You realize the original designer is involved...

Yes, I'm involved, but not heavily involved: probably as involved as you guys are now but starting many months earlier.

Personally, I do think some aspects of the controls need to be better, but this has been improving version by version.

I'm sure that well-considered and specific suggestions will be taken onboard, whereas saying that it's all the fault of the consoles isn't really too helpful. Games have pretty much always had to be multi-platform, so developers have always had to work around different architectures, different levels of performance, different amounts of storage, and different input methods. This does cause headaches, and it is the job of the developer to try and give users on each platform a great gaming experience.

Remember, the BIS guys are also fans of CC and they want the game to be great!

[Slatts]

I'm gonna come at this from another angle. One from a person who most likely isnt gonna buy CC:GM, and plays both PC and consoles

what exactly is wrong with this game being on consoles? how will this affect the PC version? most cross platforms games have differences between PC and console, a quick example is that PC players of BF3 get the commo rose, console doesn't.

if you want to play CC:GM on PC that's fine, why those the fact I could pop over to Gamestop and buy it for PS3 bother you so much? what's wrong with consoles? If you want to play PC games, go ahead, but hating console players for no good reason is just...well...not nice :p

oh and the usual point, its a BETA and can change ;)

[Dajunka]

If console players deliberately go out and buy, with the intention of owning, and using a console, then they deserve to be hated. :p

[nww02]

It's horses for courses.

Consoles are best at things which require communal, low-resolution, low-attention-span, low-complexity, high immediacy (or not, if it's a PS3 ;-)
PCs are best at things which require solo play, planning, time, high-res, lots of CPU horsepower, RAM, intricate placement of things, etc.

I love my PS2 for the dance mat games at drunken parties etc. But we're unconvinced that a console RTS would provide the level of depth and accuracy of a PC version. We fear that they'd have to 'dumb it down', to prevent complexity explosion. Secondly, if the console port is given poor reviews, it may have some 'splash damage' on the PC version. It's pure snobbery, that's what it is :) I look forward to BI proving me wrong, though.

[gadgetmind]

I demand that CCGM be ported to the Nintendo Wii! And none of this kowtowing to the keyboard-obsessed PC crowd! I want to be able to do everything with my Wiimote (just one, obviously) *and* I want proper Mii support so I can populate my mantas with those cute little guys and gals.

[metalcraze]

what exactly is wrong with this game being on consoles? how will this affect the PC version?
Consoles have horrible controls for both action and strategy games - meaning interface on PC is usually extremely annoying and the gameplay is simplified because gamepads don't have enough buttons and precision for quick movement in Action and in-depth tactical capabilities in Strategy.

Consoles have terrible hardware which always causes the game to have as less content, interactivity and openness in its levels as possible to make it run at at least 30 FPS most of the time. Minecraft will have invisible walls and small islands in console version. What else can be said.

And judging from comments the case is the same with Carrier Command GM. I was afraid that the game will be too simple to be a strategy and too slow to be an action game when it was announced as multiplatform.
I wouldn't be surprised if Battlezone from 14 years ago will be a much better game, especially strategically. With the amount of power and the flexibility of controls that PCs have today CCGM looks disappointing.

[Max Power]

You should probably play it before you go ringing alarm bells like that, metalcraze.

[Harbinger]

You should probably play it before you go ringing alarm bells like that, metalcraze.

He's right though.

Why have a game for a PC, with all it's possibilities, nerfed into oblivion just so it can reach the console market?

I understand the financial reasons - but seriously - this is a game - no a masterpiece that should not be compromised under any circumstances.

Stop development on the console versions, develop the PC game, let it blossom into what it deserves to.

When that is complete - port it to the consoles as best as their abilties allow - but for goodness sake - don't let this sink!

[Dajunka]

I would imagine they may sell as many as 10 copies for consoles, so I guess they see it as worth it. :)

[Max Power]

Reasoning that 2+2=4 because 2x2=4 has the same numbers in it is not really arriving at the right answer for the right reasons.

The game has already won awards at E3 I think so it will surely not sink.

I get the anti console sentiment and I understand it. However, there is quite a lot of extreme rhetoric going on in this forum. Will the fact this game is going to be released on multiple platforms mean it will be a total failure? Completely unenjoyable? Even in its current state, I don't find that to be true.

[Dajunka]

If the game is a complete fail then I will eat my 3 hats, BUT.....
It was a bad decision to give us this classic as a console port. It will never meet it's full potential and will always feel like a crappy console port, even though a GOOD crappy console port, a crappy console port none the less. :)

What they should have done was make it PC only, and then in two years time when console owners are begging for it, knock up a quick console version. They are only going to get one chance at this, why mess it up all because of a extra few quick bucks .

[Derk Yall]

Dajunka: Would you still complain that it is a "crappy console port" if you were not aware that this game is going to be published also on consoles? What aspects of the current releases make it a "crappy console port". Would a "crappy console port" have a PC only pre-release Beta? Isn't it a port from PC to console by the other hand? That would make i a "crappy PC port"... :j:

Personaly, i am not a console player, I play solely on PC, but I don't see the logic behind this complaining.

[Dajunka]

Dajunka: Would you still complain that it is a "crappy console port" if you were not aware that this game is going to be published also on consoles? What aspects of the current releases make it a "crappy console port". Would a "crappy console port" have a PC only pre-release Beta? Isn't it a port from PC to console by the other hand? That would make i a "crappy PC port"... :j:

Personaly, i am not a console player, I play solely on PC, but I don't see the logic behind this complaining.

I am not complaining. As it stands it's a good refashioned version of Carrier command. We are discussing how it could have been better.
Sorry about the rest of it, but I don't really understand what it is you are trying to say.

[Max Power]

He is speculating that the knowledge that it is a multiplatform game is painting your perception of its quality.

[Dajunka]

He is speculating that the knowledge that it is a multiplatform game is painting your perception of its quality.

I see.
To put it plainly, I think Carrier Command GM is a great game, I have recommended it to everyone I know, as well as spread the word all over the net. I bet at least 100 of those beta participants are a result of my recommendation. :)

All I am doing here is agreeing with those that disagree with it being a console port.

[Jedra]

People seem to be confusing 'bad ports' to games developed for multi-platform. This is not a console port. There have been a few in the past, that were terrible there have also been a few multi-platform developments that were terrible too - this isn't one of them as far as the beta tells me. I just don't get it - I have played this game a fair bit and just don't see the problem here. It works very well on the PC and I bet it plays very well on a console too. I can't see anywhere where they have made horrendous sacrifices.

I will probably buy it for the 360 as I know a number of people who don't have gaming PCs who would be interested in playing it. It will probably bring in a load more people who are interested in BI products, and who knows I may be able to persuade a couple of them to build a gaming PC and buy Arma 3 when it's out.

Someone said 'for a few extra bucks' - the console market is huge - it's an untapped resource for BI and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to go for it. Just think of all that extra revenue which can be used to support the development of PC only games like Arma 3 and Take On Helicopters. How long do you think BI can continue to make these massive games when restricted to an every diminishing PC market?

[Dajunka]

We have the date of release September 27th. Also the information that this and the console version will be the same, meh!

[Jedra]

We have the date of release September 27th. Also the information that this and the console version will be the same, meh!

Are you annoyed because the versions are the same, or because the PC version is bad or has made too many compromises? If the latter then how? If the former then that's a little illogical really.

[Dajunka]

Are you annoyed because the versions are the same, or because the PC version is bad or has made too many compromises? If the latter then how? If the former then that's a little illogical really.

You can't but help feeling a little screwed, having a game downgraded so that it will work on a crappy console. And it leaves you wondering what it might have been like if crappy consoles didn't exist. :o:

[Nicholas]

I'm sure that if they never would have announced that this would be on consoles, you would probably be quite happy with it. But the fact that it is also coming out on consoles, people like you will look for things that they can complain about saying that it is just a crappy console "port".

[Max Power]

It certainly seems to bring to mind imaginary benefits of what could be.

edit: I'm not saying that the multiplatform requirement didn't factor into the design, but how different do you think it would be?

[Dajunka]

I can have a guess at a few pointers. :)

Graphics would be better if optimized for the PC, you can see that straight away when playing CC, they are nice but not the best.
There would be more content. There is always less content on the console version of a game made separately for both.
The controls. On all console ports I have ever played the controls are always zhit.

Also when it goes on general release, I can't see it doing as well as you would expect for a title such as this, mainly due to a great many PC owners see console ports as substandard software.

[Nicholas]

I can have a guess at a few pointers. :)

1. Graphics would be better if optimized for the PC, you can see that straight away when playing CC, they are nice but not the best.
2. There would be more content. There is always less content on the console version of a game made separately for both.
3. The controls. On all console ports I have ever played the controls are always zhit.

1. I believe that right now, the graphics are optimized for the PC. I believe this may be the same engine used to create Alpha Prime, which was a PC-only game. The beta is not on consoles right now. I personally think the graphics look amazing.

2. They've almost exactly recreated Carrier Command with 2012 graphics, how could there possibly be more content. And it is a beta.

3. How are the controls shit? Because you can't change them? As said before, it's still in beta.

[Hawk Firestorm]

I can certanly understand BI's reasoning to want to push it to the console market too, however while the graphics engine etc can be converged the rest of the games developement should be separate, better to have a excellent PC game and try convert it to console use than a mediocre console one converted to the PC.

If the design choices are only for a PC game I'll be amazed and TBH even more concerned, because what I'm looking at appears to be a dual platform game and its limiting its potential significantly on the strategy front, something consoles just arent good at.

If Arma had followed the same design doctrine it most certainly wouldn't have been the successful series of games it has.

If BI wish to develope for consoles they should do but they should design products specific to that markets audience, not a half way house approach, the world doesn't need another so so game house.

As for PC users seeing Console software substandard yup absolutely, the two different platoforms have consumers with totally different expectations and tastes, trying to converge the two is simply silly, what you gain on one hand you loose on the other not to mention fluffing up a opportunity on such a licence and the damage you cause to your brand.

The game todate I'm seeing is heavy on the graphics and very light on the gameplay design, where the orginal was the flipside, as with many older games alot more attention was paid to the gameplay because the hardware wasn't about, today the opposite seems to be true, personally I think its partly because of the impact consoles have had on the upcomming generation of developers, me at 45 I'm old school I like good well thought out games with good gameplay, graphics ya nice but the game itself is far more important.

Personally I find it rather sad, the standard and quality of games has dropped enourmously from the old games like Wingcommander etc where the gaming industry drove the hardware industry, now there's the hardware but there seems to be no developer talent about to use it.

Ironic I guess.

But I think this will end up being a mediocre Xbox game pushed to the PC, rather than a excellent PC game pushed to the Xbox as it should have been, and probably spawned a whole series of games, instead of being forgetten about 3 weeks after release.

It's like star wars MMO all over again, get a fantastic licence then utterly fluff it.

[Gazzareth]

You guys are obviously playing a completely different BETA to me, sure there are a few things that (given the choice) I would change, but overall it is excellent and a good follow up from the "Carrier Command" legacy. I am sure that there will be many changes before the release date after all it is still a BETA.

You should also bear in mind that saying a game is for "PC" brings in a whole lot of variables in itself, not everyone has a ninja gaming PC - so compromises will have to be made so that things work on the "average machine" not just so that it runs on the XBOX as well. I can think of a few PC only games that have had really bad control systems, and a few ported games that are fine so if there is something you don't like (anchorages for example - not a favorite of mine) then use the feedback system to highlight it.

Finally for those that say it will affect sales - damn right it will - read the sales charts, from UK games chart for week 12/May from Guardian (only showing games available on PC):::::

1: Sniper Elite v2 : Breakdown: XBOX 56%, PS3 38%, PC 7%
5: Mass Effect 3 : XBOX 62%, PS3 31%, PC 7%
9: Battlefield 3 : XBOX 54%, PS3 34%, PC 12%
10: Assasins Creed: Revelations : XBOX 53%, PS3 44%, PC 2%
11: MW3 : XBOX 49%, PS3 40%, PC 8%, Wii 3%
12: Skyrim : XBOX 49%, PS3 33%, PC 18%
13: Saints Row 3rd : XBOX 57%, PS3 40%, PC 3%
16: Witcher 2 : XBOX 96%, PC 4%
and finally one good one for the PC.. .. ..
18: Football Manager 2012 : PC 93%, PSP 7%

With figures like that it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore consoles, unless of course you only ever want to produce very niche products for a declining customer base. Like it or not consoles are here to stay, and that is the way gaming is going - although I am proud to be in the minority and stay with the PC !!!

G

[Nicholas]

You guys are obviously playing a completely different BETA to me, sure there are a few things that (given the choice) I would change, but overall it is excellent and a good follow up from the "Carrier Command" legacy. I am sure that there will be many changes before the release date after all it is still a BETA.

You should also bear in mind that saying a game is for "PC" brings in a whole lot of variables in itself, not everyone has a ninja gaming PC - so compromises will have to be made so that things work on the "average machine" not just so that it runs on the XBOX as well. I can think of a few PC only games that have had really bad control systems, and a few ported games that are fine so if there is something you don't like (anchorages for example - not a favorite of mine) then use the feedback system to highlight it.

Finally for those that say it will affect sales - damn right it will - read the sales charts, from UK games chart for week 12/May from Guardian (only showing games available on PC):::::

1: Sniper Elite v2 : Breakdown: XBOX 56%, PS3 38%, PC 7%
5: Mass Effect 3 : XBOX 62%, PS3 31%, PC 7%
9: Battlefield 3 : XBOX 54%, PS3 34%, PC 12%
10: Assasins Creed: Revelations : XBOX 53%, PS3 44%, PC 2%
11: MW3 : XBOX 49%, PS3 40%, PC 8%, Wii 3%
12: Skyrim : XBOX 49%, PS3 33%, PC 18%
13: Saints Row 3rd : XBOX 57%, PS3 40%, PC 3%
16: Witcher 2 : XBOX 96%, PC 4%
and finally one good one for the PC.. .. ..
18: Football Manager 2012 : PC 93%, PSP 7%

With figures like that it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore consoles, unless of course you only ever want to produce very niche products for a declining customer base. Like it or not consoles are here to stay, and that is the way gaming is going - although I am proud to be in the minority and stay with the PC !!!

G

Right on, Gazzareth.

[Harbinger]

To defend some peeps - I would have to say that console play is indeed "dumbed down" - and there are many and varied reasons for it.

Consoles are, mostly, a homogenous platform. Games on them need to cater for the lowest common denominator. They are vastly underpowered compared to whats available on the modern PC build - but it's ok - it's a known platform, easy to code for, and not entirelly dissimilar that a code fork wastes a fortune in development cash.

However, they are limited in the experience they can bring. Not the manufacturers fault, not the game designers fault, only fault is in what the average person can achieve with a hand controller. Which is not much. Which is why console games tend to be a bit arse.

Carrier Command utilizing the full capabilities of a modern, multi-core, multi-gigabyte, GPU heavy PC would just be wondrous.

Instead - it looks like we are being given Carrier Command on a platform from 2005. Wich begs the question - why is the graphical performance so poor on High Settings on modern hardware without some tweakage?

Will 360 owners enjoy full FPS on High? Can they even change it?

[Dajunka]

But I think this will end up being a mediocre Xbox game pushed to the PC, rather than a excellent PC game pushed to the Xbox as it should have been, and probably spawned a whole series of games, instead of being forgetten about 3 weeks after release.

It's like star wars MMO all over again, get a fantastic licence then utterly fluff it.

Sadly I believe this is the way it will go as well. On the bright side, one of those games that it may spawn will be the ONE.

Hehe, I am trying to imagine where Arma II would be today if it had been a console port. :)

[Nicholas]

Hehe, I am trying to imagine where Arma II would be today if it had been a console port. :)

Oh Jesus Christ. OFP had a console port and it turned out fine. The OFP port did not effect the way that ArmA turned out, did it?

[Max Power]

In my opinion it doesn't seem like a mediocre Xbox game right now...

[Dajunka]

Okay, let me ask you guys a couple of questions.

If the decision had been made to make CCGM PC exclusive. Do you honestly think that it would look, play and feel the same as the version we have today?

Will Arma III be a console port, and if not, then why not?

[Max Power]

I think it would probably have a higher texel ratio on the polygons near the camera if it was PC exclusive. The rest, I can't say. It seems to play fine to me.

[St!gar]

OFP had a console port and it turned out fine. The OFP port did not effect the way that ArmA turned out, did it?

The problem here is that OFP had a console port, but it was not a console port.

[Gazzareth]

The problem here is that OFP had a console port, but it was not a console port.

From my understanding the lead platform for CCGM is the PC - not the other way around .. .. So how is it a console port ??

G

[gunso]

Console? after what Dayz mod do for arma 2 even for a game that's at the end of it's peak, BIS efforts in supporting user made mods finally pays off. It's better than wasting a lot of money for advertisement.

PC +1
Console 0

[Max Power]

I'm not really seeing the relevance here, gunso. The sales figures quoted by Gazzareth indicate that consoles sell around about 1000% more games than PC. You think that that is possible with every game they release in the future because there are relying on some mod that may or may not materialize at just the right time? Please.

[o0Jedi0o]

I am also dissapointed with the xbox 360 port nature of the game. I would have liked this information up front, rather than supporting the P&C for what I believed was a PC game in development. I will be more cautious in spending my money with BIS in the future.

:p

[Dajunka]

I don't think your average gamer gives two and a half fluffy ducks about profit margins and the annual turnover for software company's. They are more interested in getting a good quality game that shows what a PC can do......brummmm.....brummmm.

[ScareYa]

I guess that's just as wrong from the average gamer then as from the software companies to not care about what their customers want. And I would like to place emphasis on the fact that PC gamers are customers, too. I do grant any developer the right to earn money though. Heck, without earning money they wouldn't be able to keep in business. But there must be a way to create games that give PC gamers the interface and the comfort they are used to.

I think what all those guys are demanding is this: Don't cripple PC games because the consoles are relying on limiting game controllers, suffer from not enough memory and use old-fashioned hardware. There MUST be a way to develop cross-platform without castrating PC gaming.

Carrier Command Gaea Mission is a great game which I really like. But I do find some things very limiting (compared to the original from 1985) and I am afraid those limits are brought by the limitations of the consoles. I don't like the limitations. But I do like CCGM even with them...

[Gazzareth]

I don't think your average gamer gives two and a half fluffy ducks about profit margins and the annual turnover for software company's. They are more interested in getting a good quality game that shows what a PC can do......brummmm.....brummmm.

They should be - the developers need to make a profit so that they can bankroll the next game - the bigger profit the more the incentive to make the next title, if they are not making a decent profit on games then there is no way that they will get the finance to keep on going.


I am also dissapointed with the xbox 360 port nature of the game. I would have liked this information up front, rather than supporting the P&C for what I believed was a PC game in development. I will be more cautious in spending my money with BIS in the future.


It was pretty clear on the website that it was going to be coming out on consoles as well as PC - not sure if it stated that it would be the XBOX only at that point, but it shouldn't have taken a genius to work out which one(s) it was likely to come out on.

G

[Hawk Firestorm]

No it wasn't in fact the announcement that is was being pushed to console was only made on the 17th, infact I think I started this thread long before the annoucement as I was concerned it was being pushed down that route as I and I'm sure many others who stumped up expecting a PC remake that took the game to the next level, only to get a half breed console game.

Nor was it many months ago when I posted a thread on the forums after seeing footage of the game and it being described as having 'strategic elements', because at the time from what I saw it appeared to me that they had gone out focused on the graphics side of the game, but didn't seem to have a grip of the base gameplay engineering that made the original so popular, and the more I've seen in the demo has confirmed this it seems my concerns were spot on sadly.

I suspect like myself many here were expecting a quality PC remake, that expectation being set both that it was comming from BI, who have been a PC developer and produced many of the games I currently own.

To do this game justace it required the power and versitility of the PC, its processing power, input method that lends itself to game with strategy and depth, where consoles were designed for waggle waggle waggle, shoot boom ya dead.

I suspect and this is speculation on my part that BI is having funding issues with the current climate, and considering how little progress the game has made since it was annouced, and someone over there looked at carrier command as a cash cow to cash in the brand name to raise funding for Arma3.

Which is sadly because if BI had gone about this the right way, and set out their stall to keep the bar where it should be, this game had the potential to out do any other title or series they've done todate, and some here maybe hoping that mystically between now and sept it will appear but it simply won't.

At the moment I'm seeing a game with nice graphics and little depth, that I would place below hostile waters and by long chalk gameplay wise, never mind a full remake, and the biggest culprit its going that way is the decision to push it to console and the sacrifices that have had to be made to do so.

I guess the guy in the footage was correct it is going to be a game with 'strategic elements' (very few) and basically be a joypad waggling FPS wonder with a carrier in it, carrier command on the box but none of it in it.

If they had gone out from teh get go and designed a console game fair go, but this convergence idea is one of a idiot practiced by a fool, two different platforms one deisnged for FPS type games, and consumers who tastes lean towards the deign of the platform, and the other which is very varied, who consumers tend to have more demanding and varied tastes.

Which is as I've said you can make a PC game and then try adapt it to the console but I've never seen one that has worked the other way round, and I certainly think the developement of the two should be spearate other than the very most basic of elements, each tailored to the platform its going on, and more importantly the consumer base.

And to be honest I don't think this title was ever suited for consoles, not unless you completely abandon the elements and design which made the game so popular in the first place, it started on the PC it should have stayed there, its the only platform with the power and versitilty capable of doing it justace.

There's simply not nor do I believe will there be, anywhere near enough depth, especially on the strategy front to appeal to many PC users, I'm sure the thumb wagglers will love it for a week or two.

Graphics 8/10 gameplay and design 3/10 could do far far better, and indeed should be.

[Parmenides]

No it wasn't in fact the announcement that is was being pushed to console was only made on the 17th, infact I think I started this thread long before the annoucement as I was concerned it was being pushed down that route as I and I'm sure many others who stumped up expecting a PC remake that took the game to the next level, only to get a half breed console game.

Nor was it many months ago when I posted a thread on the forums after seeing footage of the game and it being described as having 'strategic elements', because at the time from what I saw it appeared to me that they had gone out focused on the graphics side of the game, but didn't seem to have a grip of the base gameplay engineering that made the original so popular, and the more I've seen in the demo has confirmed this it seems my concerns were spot on sadly.

I suspect like myself many here were expecting a quality PC remake, that expectation being set both that it was comming from BI, who have been a PC developer and produced many of the games I currently own.

To do this game justace it required the power and versitility of the PC, its processing power, input method that lends itself to game with strategy and depth, where consoles were designed for waggle waggle waggle, shoot boom ya dead.

I suspect and this is speculation on my part that BI is having funding issues with the current climate, and considering how little progress the game has made since it was annouced, and someone over there looked at carrier command as a cash cow to cash in the brand name to raise funding for Arma3.

Which is sadly because if BI had gone about this the right way, and set out their stall to keep the bar where it should be, this game had the potential to out do any other title or series they've done todate, and some here maybe hoping that mystically between now and sept it will appear but it simply won't.

At the moment I'm seeing a game with nice graphics and little depth, that I would place below hostile waters and by long chalk gameplay wise, never mind a full remake, and the biggest culprit its going that way is the decision to push it to console and the sacrifices that have had to be made to do so.

I guess the guy in the footage was correct it is going to be a game with 'strategic elements' (very few) and basically be a joypad waggling FPS wonder with a carrier in it, carrier command on the box but none of it in it.

If they had gone out from teh get go and designed a console game fair go, but this convergence idea is one of a idiot practiced by a fool, two different platforms one deisnged for FPS type games, and consumers who tastes lean towards the deign of the platform, and the other which is very varied, who consumers tend to have more demanding and varied tastes.

Which is as I've said you can make a PC game and then try adapt it to the console but I've never seen one that has worked the other way round, and I certainly think the developement of the two should be spearate other than the very most basic of elements, each tailored to the platform its going on, and more importantly the consumer base.

And to be honest I don't think this title was ever suited for consoles, not unless you completely abandon the elements and design which made the game so popular in the first place, it started on the PC it should have stayed there, its the only platform with the power and versitilty capable of doing it justace.

There's simply not nor do I believe will there be, anywhere near enough depth, especially on the strategy front to appeal to many PC users, I'm sure the thumb wagglers will love it for a week or two.

Graphics 8/10 gameplay and design 3/10 could do far far better, and indeed should be.

Sadly to say I fully agree.
I eager awaited this game to be a top successor of its original but seeing it has Console controls (similar to Stormrise) and very shallow strategic elements , I knew there went something wrong.
The full potential of a successor won't be seen until September.
The only hope that this game could be a success would be if there would be a modding scene and the game engine would allow this to unleash its full potential

This game doesnt need a story, it needs a compelling stratgic mode, an open hudge world which is fully explorable / conquerable (no timewarps and load screens omg why do they do this crap).

[Nicholas]

I saw it appeared to me that they had gone out focused on the graphics side of the game

I find it odd that you're saying this, when just last month you said this:


While the grahpics are good etc, the gameplay I find rather lackluster and below that of the orginal, rather than improving it.

I hope you do realize that Bohemia Interactive is quite a small studio compared to others and I don't believe they would have the workforce to work on a console version and a PC version separate from each other.

[Hawk Firestorm]

What's odd about it, I've said yes the graphics are good, though I think the design of the landscapes wasn't thought out well especially considering use by a AI.

But graphics alone don't make a game, and I suspect there's many smaller groups that have produced products alot better than games offered today.

If size was related to quality then EA would be the rolls royce of the gaming industry and erm *cough*

[Nicholas]

But graphics alone don't make a game, and I suspect there's many smaller groups that have produced products alot better than games offered today.

Exactly, not a single item alone will make a game. It is primarily about gameplay, correct? I think they've done well recreating the old Carrier Command. People will complain though that it is too similar and they didn't improve it. But then, those same people would complain that the game isn't enough like the original.

[Gazzareth]

No it wasn't in fact the announcement that is was being pushed to console was only made on the 17th, infact I think I started this thread long before the annoucement as I was concerned it was being pushed down that route as I and I'm sure many others who stumped up expecting a PC remake that took the game to the next level, only to get a half breed console game.

Nor was it many months ago when I posted a thread on the forums after seeing footage of the game and it being described as having 'strategic elements', because at the time from what I saw it appeared to me that they had gone out focused on the graphics side of the game, but didn't seem to have a grip of the base gameplay engineering that made the original so popular, and the more I've seen in the demo has confirmed this it seems my concerns were spot on sadly.


The only announcement made was that the choice of the console(s) being the XBOX 360, the site explicitly stated from at least the end of January (which is when I started looking at it) that the game would also be coming out on consoles. It was on the main page in info where it now says XBOX 360, it also said coming first quarter 2012 - which has now changed with the date.

G

[MadDogX]

Yeah, the info about it coming out on next-gen consoles is pretty old, only the XBox360 & PC exclusivity is new.

Just looking at the first version of the CC:GM article on Wikipedia (from December 2009), it says the game will be released on PC and next-gen consoles, so this shouldn't be news to anyone.

[Dajunka]

Na, BI really dropped the ball on this one. The game is going to be good, but not great like it should have been. Somebody needs sacking.

[Kremator]

Let's just wait and see gents... no point in getting your knickers in a twist! There is plenty of time between now and release to tweak (and add things). Should they stay like they are then, perhaps, you have cause to complain, but remember that noone forced you to buy the P&C beta.

[Hawk Firestorm]

No there isn't, nothing new will be added now that hasn't been already planned on till the release in Sept, other than minor tweaks.

That being a console game, okie fair enough get them to stump up front to support it, don't reach out to your PC customer base and then go off and make a three wheeled skoda.

[Gazzareth]

Na, BI really dropped the ball on this one. The game is going to be good, but not great like it should have been. Somebody needs sacking.

Nothing like jumping on the bandwagon, I take it you are NOT the same Dajunka that said:::


To put it plainly, I think Carrier Command GM is a great game, I have recommended it to everyone I know, as well as spread the word all over the net. I bet at least 100 of those beta...


or


It is a game to get truly lost in, as was the original. I feel so relieved that they kept all of the parts of the game that made it so remembered. And to think it's not even finished yet....


or


My graphics were already beautiful and then I installed all the recommended compatibly win 7 updates ( not security updates) and your nor going to believe this, but my graphics have become even better.

It seems to me that a few people in the thread have more of a problem with the FACT the game is going to be ported TO consoles rather than the game itself.

G

[Hawk Firestorm]

Absolutely not.

Console 'ports' are of lower quality and depth, if I 'dislike' them its purely because of this, the PC is the higher bar here by far.

The reason they are are very simple the platform has a tight design focus and technical capabilities, the consumer tastes between those that use them are generally vast, there is a small group that kind of live inbetween the 2, but for the majority they are poles apart.

You can do one or the other well or try and do both badly.

BI's user base is going to be made up of PC users, that's a no brainer some will go for it many many more won't.

Gaming tastes as with everything are subjective, there are for instance people like myself who do play FPS games, although liking flight/combat sims and strategy and RPG, but most of all the reason I have these tastes is on a game by game basis and the PC games I've come to enjoy were all very well crafted, and other game 'ports' like DA2 I utterly reject because they are vapid, and lack depth because of the limitations of consoles and the influence its had on the design path to try put it to them.

This is another, and I'm absolutely positive I will be far from alone here.

Like I said if your a primarily a PC developer and you take on a remake of a PC game, then say okie PC users were going to remake it what in heck do you think people are going to be expecting at the end of it?

Joypad waggling nonsence with sonic the hedhog? I think not.

Like I say there's no middle ground here, if you take such a licence and people trust you as a maker of good PC games and you don't deliver, or in this case go completely against what the majority of your consumer base is expecting from you to deliver, that damages your brand and once you've done it you never get it back.

It's a double edge sword really, peoples expectations are going to be high indeed, you've got the opportunity to make a great sucess, or completely fluff it and damage your brand, and alienate your existing customer base, and damage their faith and trust in your brand.

But in answer to your statement no I don't hate consoles per say, I hate the degredation and effect they have had on the quality and variety of products being thrown out the door, and yes I see much of that in this offering and yes like I'm sure many will be I'm greatly disapointed in both BI and this title.

Frankly they can do alot better, and yes I do think they have utterly fluffed a licence few only could dream of ever obtaining and the opportunities that it presented.

[Nicholas]

It seems to me that a few people in the thread have more of a problem with the FACT the game is going to be ported TO consoles rather than the game itself.

Exactly. Like I said earlier:


I'm sure that if they never would have announced that this would be on consoles, you would probably be quite happy with it. But the fact that it is also coming out on consoles, people like you will look for things that they can complain about saying that it is just a crappy console "port".


BI's user base is going to be made up of PC users, that's a no brainer some will go for it many many more won't.

BI's primary userbase is mostly made up of military simulator/ArmA fans. I hope you realize that this game isn't aimed directly at the ArmA userbase to begin with. They are trying their best, and they are doing a damn good job, to make it easy to play and available to as many people as possible.

[Gazzareth]

Exactly. Like I said earlier:

Sorry missed that after reading the diatribes over the consoles .. .. ..


G

[Nicholas]

Sorry missed that after reading the diatribes over the consoles .. .. ..


G

No problem, just agreeing with you and informing we had the same views. :P

[Gazzareth]

Absolutely not.

Console 'ports' are of lower quality and depth, if I 'dislike' them its purely because of this.

<snip>

You can do one or the other well or try and do both badly.

BI's user base is going to be made up of PC users, that's a no brainer some will go for it many many more won't.

<snip>

Like I said if your a primarily a PC developer and you take on a remake of a PC game, then say okie PC users were going to remake it what in heck do you think people are going to be expecting at the end of it?



Sorry, but that is utter rubbish - have you even seen / heard of BF3 ?? Which is the only "PORT" that I play and the lead platform on that was switched to consoles in the development stage.... It is still stunning on the PC.

I would expect a PC developer to try and spread it's portfolio out to a much wider user base than just the niche PC market - at least if they want to stay in business. But since it was clearly stated on the site and mentioned in the YouTube videos well before the BETA came out, it did not come as a surprise.

G

[Dajunka]

Nothing like jumping on the bandwagon, I take it you are NOT the same Dajunka that said:::
or
or
It seems to me that a few people in the thread have more of a problem with the FACT the game is going to be ported TO consoles rather than the game itself.

G

Narr, that was my younger brother. :p

It was a good start, but nothing progressed. It is basically the same game now as the day I bought it, just a few bug fixes. I feel confident that if it was PC only game, that it's depth would have increased dramatically, but as a console port it's stagnant.

[Hawk Firestorm]

Nothing wrong with expanding into new markets but you have to be careful how you do it, but on the whole the idea of convergence is just plain daft.

As for BF3 yes I have, being more of a console game its not my taste and that to me occupies the middle ground between the two platforms that being FPS, the one genre that both do very well, but the instances where this occurs and it does turn out well are very few and far between, so yes the PC has and always will be the higher bar, because it has the power scope and flexibility consoles don't have open to them along with the input method.

Games that were developed for the PC then adapted to the console seem to be of better quality but those the other way round don't, because your converting from a limited platform to one that isn't and who's customers tastes mirror the platform they are using.

But regardless, I've made my point I don't think the product is inline with what I would want or indeed expect, and I don't think its going remotely in the right direction, the choices made to accomodate it on the console have comprimised it and I think degraded it because of the limitations of one of the target platforms, and needlessly.

It feels hollow a simple fly this manta to here blow a few buildings send in the walrus, empty and rather vapid, and the strategic options haven't been expanded upon nor indeed has the game been brought upto the level of the original never mind exceeded it, with the exception of the graphics.

Which is a pity, because there was both the hardware and the scope to do so available, but not the imagination will or tallent apprently.

I don't think this game will be one people will be talking about in 10 years time but yet another game forgotten about 2 weeks after its release, and from the people that made Arma and the community its created well that's just sad in itself.

So yes out of all the options available they picked up the big ball of fluff, and utterly fluffed it.

[Nicholas]

Welcome to 2012, Hawk Firestorm. Where most people do not have money to buy a good gaming computer, most would rather spend money on a console and not have to worry if a game will run or not. People like the simplicity so they have more time to do other more important things, rather than worrying if the game was developed for Xbox then ported to the PC. I suggest you'd better get used to it, or else you will just be wasting your time. Sure, you can say "If you go with the flow, then nothing will ever change." Well, it seems most people just don't care if a game was developed for PC then ported to Xbox or PS3, vice versa. There are too many people that just don't give a hoot, they enjoy the game for what it is, not where it came from. Why do you think that most developers do choose to develop for the console rather than PC first? Because that's where the majority of the people are, that's where the most money is to be made. With the majority of possible players being on consoles, of course BIS will want to make the console experience as best as possible. The PC players don't matter as much, you are still important to them, but just not as much.

Also, I don't know if you've ever noticed my signature. It's a quote from Suma.


"Regarding the people telling you vocally what you should and should not do, well, you can do the same that has proven extremely healthy to us during development: Dogs bark but the caravan goes on." - Suma

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Here is a quote from Marek Španěl, the CEO, talking about working on consoles.


For our development team this project forced us to handle various things differently, especially to be more organized and, in the end, this was beneficial for the growth of the company. Developing for a console means that there are many more regulations and compliance procedures. These can cause delays on the one hand, but forced us to streamline, polish and optimize on the other hand. We were also able to identify our technology's bottlenecks when applied to a fixed (and often less powerful than PC) hardware platform. These were all lessons we try to bring forward with us into the future.

[Hawk Firestorm]

Most PC's out of the box these days are good gaming computers.

Sure you can get specialised kit but the vast majority even most laptops are fully gaming capable and have been for many years.

As for 'Niche' market there's more Pc's users on this planet than there ever will be Console, Ask microsoft, If the PC market has indeed becomea niche its because of lazy and shoddy developement, and the pursuit of greed over quality, where the bottom line has become more important than what you set out to create.

I'll give it to marek he can turn a phrase, the main reasons for developing on consoles are pretty simple, its easier and cheaper to develope for such a unified platform, and of course Piracy, though tbh I most definately attribute the rise in a good portion of that to a backlash by consumers tired of getting ripped off though obviously not all.

Its a unified platform and by comparison is like comparing a painting by numbers kit to Micheal Angelo. Does it have advantages absolutely, but it has massive pitfalls as well, the effects of which are clearly evident and the effect its had on the industry and the quality and diversecity of products being offered, it puts everything on railtracks and that's not a good place to be to innovate, something I've seen very little of over the past 10 years.

But anyway this wasn't a thread about the the benefits of Consoles v PC's, it was a thread about the game having good graphics, (and while I'm on the subject I'd like to say so far this is one area of this product I've actually seen some incling of any real tallent) and little depth in the gameplay dept, which feels rather empty and uninspired me being a old PC user, I've certainly seen better, and I certainly think BI is more than capable of doing better.

[Nicholas]

As for 'Niche' market there's more Pc's users on this planet than there ever will be Console, Ask microsoft, If the PC market has indeed becomea niche its because of lazy and shoddy developement, and the pursuit of greed over quality, where the bottom line has become more important than what you set out to create.

Of course there are more PC/Windows users. But how many of them would you consider "gamers" that would play a game like Carrier Command? It's not the PC/Windows market that is niche, it is the PC gaming market that is much smaller than the console gaming market. Just look at those sales numbers that Gazzareth posted.

[Machine77]

Of course there are more PC/Windows users. But how many of them would you consider "gamers" that would play a game like Carrier Command? It's not the PC/Windows market that is niche, it is the PC gaming market that is much smaller than the console gaming market. Just look at those sales numbers that Gazzareth posted.

Those were retail sales. Most pc gamers buy games digitally nowadays. Hell I can't even remember the last pc game I bought in a store.

I read an interesting article that predicts PC games will outsell the console market within the next 2 years. However, what we pc gamers will get might be horrible ports. Rumor has it the next-gen gaming consoles will be far inferior to pc's compared to current gen when they premiered. That certainly won't help matters.

Like I said before, don't look to AAA game developers to bring us something great and innovative, its more likely going to come from indie game developers.

http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/10174154/

[Nicholas]

Like I said before, don't look to AAA game developers to bring us something great and innovative, its more likely going to come from indie game developers.

This is your first post, isn't it?

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------


Those were retail sales. Most pc gamers buy games digitally nowadays. Hell I can't even remember the last pc game I bought in a store.

I read an interesting article that predicts PC games will outsell the console market within the next 2 years. However, what we pc gamers will get might be horrible ports. Rumor has it the next-gen gaming consoles will be far inferior to pc's compared to current gen when they premiered. That certainly won't help matters.

Carrier Command is being released at the end of this year. Not in two years, those stats don't matter right now.