Topic: Good ideas for the current gaming industry

[uzo]

Yeah, this hits PC-exclusive devs all the time because PC hardware is so snowflake-like and each machine often winds up unique to its user. There's simply no possible way to test your game for all of that, but devs are often expected to test for as many as they can anyway, and more than one studio has verbosely lamented the time costs associated with it. Making a game for console AND PC is generally easier because consoles give a flat, even starting point and minimum standard of quality for the PC version. Hence why several series that used to be considered "PC first" like Crysis have shifted to using consoles as the defining standard for development; it's just a simpler way of doing things for the development staff, and it can shave weeks or even months off of testing.

Even further because PC just is what it is in that regard, a lot of PC games launch with a prayer and an expected heavy support cycle right after release. It's going to 100% bomb on someone's PC somewhere. Hardware issues, driver issues, conflicting software, viruses on their PC crashing your game (the most fun to explain to the customer). This has become an accepted part of PC gaming, but...

This is UNACCEPTABLE in the Console space! Your game will never pass the hardware manufacturer's standards, and thus you will not be allowed to print your disks/carts and go to retail. This is STILL true for Nintendo, but not quite as much for Sony and MS anymore. Your game has to be relatively crash free at least still. It can't just crash on boot.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

incestors

You might wanna address that typo bruv.

[zangetsu468]

Incestors? Lmao

Incest ridden ancestors? 

[Shiroi Koumori]

Modified the typo.
Hahahaha! I was typing on an ipad and C and V are very near each other.

[zangetsu468]

Modified the typo.
Hahahaha! I was typing on an ipad and C and V are very near each other.

C and V go well together

[Lumi Kløvstad]

So, in moving my prior comments in this thread to my blog, I ended up clarifying and adding to them in great detail.

I find it a superior version of my prior argument.

That being said, you don't have to read it -- the version I already posted still makes the same case as the revised version.