I agree , games on PC are better.
The input method on PC is better.
The freedom on PC is better
But I still think that the audiance on console is not dumb. and I think they would like it if for once they got a game with all the depth in it.
My logic is ''if it runs , sell it , no exclusives''
Just sell keyboard and mouses on consoles.
I play on PC , I dont like consoles but those who play on them are not stupid.
If a game is not on console for hardware reasons , its fine. but if its because they think the audiance is stupid , then to me thats just wrong
The hardware issue shouldn't be a real issue with sufficient LoD scaling. As people have pointed out, the minimum specs for PCs are actually pretty low, and there's no real reason why they can't take consoles as the "minimum" detail settings and ramp everything up for PCs in the detail settings. I guess the worry here amongst players is that "can" does not necessarily mean "will"; will they continue to offer massively increased detail options for PCs despite the additional development resources required to produce high-detail assets for PC users? CPU and RAM issues should be fairly minor for ED as the part that is really CPU intensive - the BGS - is all done remotely. It's not like the game has to accurately simulate or calculate much, particularly compared to a lot of games, and textured can be downscaled through appropriate LoDing. If the game's development truly does continue for 10+ years of development, they could even port it to the eventual next generation consoles - identical game but just using high detail presets taken from the PC version.
I think most of my complaints regarding the stereotypes about gamers on different platforms (which, for me, is more of a divide between hardcore gamers and casual gamers rather than relating to platforms) involve a healthy dose of hyperbole, which isn't really reflective of reality but unfortunately is all-too-often taken as gospel by publishers and marketing teams. So let's run with this hypothetical scenario:
Imagine the
worst player. They are the most impatient, the most obnoxious, the most intolerant, the most hateful and the most self-entitled gamer ever to terrorise the planet, let alone whatever online servers he is on in a given moment (note that I never said "unskilled", while the
worst player may perform poorly and blame it on the game, that is not necessarily the case). Obviously, they can't be representative of any group of players as they are literally, by definition, the
worst (or worse) of whatever group you could ever consider. We shall call this caricature
That Guy. Now, imagine that there's a high-level boardroom meeting with David Braben, Sandro, a couple of other important Devs, a few major shareholders for the company and some of the marketing execs and they sit down to discuss the future of Elite: Dangerous. It all goes well as they discuss business matters, until the marketing execs bring up a lecture slide about how to break into potential new markets with the game by stripping down content and long term plans to make the game more accessible - a lecture slide that contains a picture of
That Guy as perfect example of a new potential market that they could expand into. After all, if it's the sort of game that
That Guy would buy and play, surely anyone would consider buying it? More importantly for us, any game developed specifically to cater to
That Guy, would we want to play and love it?
Again, healthy dose of hyperbole there, but it is the logical conclusion of what can occur if publishers and marketing teams demand the developers pursue sales at the expense of the quality of the game. I'm not afraid of the game being ported to consoles for console players and that'll somehow bring about the apocalypse, I'm worried that the marketing teams will go mad from the intoxicating taste of a new market and try to expand the market for the game further by altering the course of development rather than by simply breaking hardware barriers through ports.
