The Myth That PC Gets Poor Quality Ports

[Seanspeed]

The problem is when the development targeted at consoles means the PC version doesn't reach it's full potential.

It's a fact that consoles are less powerful than all but the lowest end of the PC gaming market, so therefore it's pretty obvious that there's no point in expending a huge amount of development time adding a load of bells and whistles that less than 30% of your market are going to be able to run.

I think even if the console market didn't exist and everybody played on PC, the same situation would exist. The vast majority of PC gamers do not have higher end PC's, so developers would still not have huge incentive to make a game with a very high baseline requirements. There's just not much financial sense in doing so.

TL;DR version: when people say "console port" they don't mean "game which was developed on a console and then re-compiled to be PC compatible", they mean "game which is designed for console and so the PC release suffers"

Regardless of what people mean by 'console port', when they say it is a 'poor' port, they usually do mean technical aspects like performance problems or lack of options/settings or support for niche hardware setups(like 21:9 or 144hz monitors, etc). That's what I'm talking about here.

 

[Seanspeed]

Maybe this thread should be renamed to 'Rant about people who use the word port incorrectly'

You guys are talking about that, not me. I'm merely talking about the accusations of PC games largely being *poor* ports. You can exchange 'port' for 'version' and it doesn't change anything I was saying.

 

[Paul_cz]

I think the biggest issue for the PC vs console debate as I see it is that the user interfaces and controls are often designed with consoles in mind.

Whether rightly or wrongly, it hampers the experience on a PC.

Except huge number of PC gamers (me included) these days play on a controller from sofa with PC connected to my 55" plasma.

User interface being designed for controllers does not necessarily have anything to do with console version. It might just be that developers prefer to play that way, on PC or console, and so give it higher priority.

 

[Diagro]

Dark souls 2, is an example.

Its made to run very very well on PC. Looks amazing and plays smoothly.

It has Xbox controls when on the PC version. and why is this?
Its because you should use a controller.... Mouse + KB is terrible on thet game

 

[Haggisman]

Except huge number of PC gamers (me included) these days play on a controller from sofa with PC connected to my 55" plasma.

User interface being designed for controllers does not necessarily have anything to do with console version. It might just be that developers prefer to play that way, on PC or console, and so give it higher priority.

Strange how there were very few controller based games on PC (outside of very specialist, e.g. flight sims) before console games became mainstream then...

I sometimes play on my PC with a controller, but I also like to play with M&KB, and its very frustrating when a game has unintuitive and poor performing M&KB controls, and ruins the experience

 

[ChrisJSY]

If you are assuming people are literally saying it's a port when people say it's a port then you are very much mistaken. Looks like many people here actually think that.

Reminds me of someone who always overly corrects someone when they just don't need to because they take everything literally. I don't know how to say much else without sounding like I'm being insulting when I'm not.

When I say port, it's a catch-all way of saying "they really couldn't have done less of a job getting this ui/system/mechanic working with the options a PC has". I don't literally mean they ported it from a console version and it wasn't developed in another way.

Jees.

 

[Seanspeed]

If you are assuming people are literally saying it's a port when people say it's a port then you are very much mistaken. Looks like many people here actually think that.

Reminds me of someone who always overly corrects someone when they just don't need to because they take everything literally. I don't know how to say much else without sounding like I'm being insulting when I'm not.

When I say port, it's a catch-all way of saying "they really couldn't have done less of a job getting this ui/system/mechanic working with the options a PC has". I don't literally mean they ported it from a console version and it wasn't developed in another way.

Jees.

I dont know why people keep saying this. Call it the 'PC version' if it makes you happier. Doesn't change anything I said. This isn't about what constitutes a 'port' or not. This is about people always thinking that PC gets the short end of the stick with multiplatforms.

 

[kthula666]

W A L L

 

[Haggisman]

I dont know why people keep saying this. Call it the 'PC version' if it makes you happier.

Because "port" is much easier to say than "game which was designed from the ground up for consoles, but then the developer decided to release it on PC as well to try and increase their market, but didn't bother to put in the effort required to actually make it a decent PC game"

Doesn't change anything I said. This isn't about what constitutes a 'port' or not. This is about people always thinking that PC gets the short end of the stick with multiplatforms.

It's not even to do with that.

It's things like the UI not being designed to work well with a mouse & keyboard. Not being able to remap keys so that moves which are easy (or at least possible) on a controller are so poorly placed on a keyboard that Rachmaninov would struggle to perform them (Fallout 4 is a great example of this - why the **** is the grenade key the same key as melee? Because console controllers don't have enough buttons... why do I have to let go of the mouse to push the "enter" key to acknowledge that I want to scrap something when in the workshop UI?)

Its things like game mechanics being toned down because console analogue sticks don't have the precision that a mouse does, and console controllers don't have as many buttons as a keyboard

It's things like resolution being locked to 720p and framerate locked to 30FPS because that's all that consoles can handle, and the devs couldn't be bothered (or were told not to bother) to allow these to be changed.

In most cases, people aren't saying that PC versions of multi-platform games are inferior to the console versions, they're saying that multi-platform games on PC are inferior to PC only games; multi-platform games on PC are often almost identical to their console versions, and therein lies the problem.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I dont know why people keep saying this.

Probably because your posts come across that way. You can argue that they dont but thats how many in the thread took it.

Like seriously though, games aren't actually ported, literally. At no point in the process is a game "ported" from one platform to another.

This is about people always thinking that PC gets the short end of the stick with multiplatforms.

Does lazy PC development not count as getting the short end of the stick?

The rest of the things you list aren't proof of "ports" either, they are proof of lazy development, and lazy development is the number 1 reason for problems with PC games.

Lol at this thread

 

[Seanspeed]

Because "port" is much easier to say than "game which was designed from the ground up for consoles, but then the developer decided to release it on PC as well to try and increase their market, but didn't bother to put in the effort required to actually make it run well on PC"

Again, the use of the word 'port' is not what this thread was intended to address.

It's not even to do with that.

It's things like the UI not being designed to work well with a mouse & keyboard. Not being able to remap keys so that moves which are easy (or at least possible) on a controller are so poorly placed on a keyboard that Rachmaninov would struggle to perform them (Fallout 4 is a great example of this - why the **** is the grenade key the same key as melee? Because console controllers don't have enough buttons...)

Its things like game mechanics being toned down because console analogue sticks don't have the precision that a mouse does, and console controllers don't have as many buttons as a keyboard

Again, thread wasn't intended to talk about how PC games have been watered down in general due to console development.

I'm talking about when a game like Arkham Knight came out and people called it a 'bad port'. You can call it a 'bad version', it doesn't matter. Not the point. But people were complaining that WB didn't care about the PC version. Rightfully in many ways. But I think people exaggerate just how often these 'bad versions' come out, as more often than not, a game that doesn't run well or whatever on PC usually doesn't run well on consoles, too. And that consoles actually get the short end of the stick quite a lot, too.

 

[Seanspeed]

Probably because your posts come across that way. You can argue that they dont but thats how many in the thread took it.

Cant really help if people misinterpret what I say or just read the title and get hung up on the use of the word 'port'.

Does lazy PC development not count as getting the short end of the stick?

I dont understand why you're asking me that, as if I somewhere said or implied otherwise?

I also dont think laziness is ever really the problem, just less commitment in terms of resources or not thinking ahead enough. Either way, I think on average, PC gets much better 'versions' of multiplatforms than many PC gamers give them credit for. And they name a few bad apples to prove their point, yet I can point to many more bad apples on the console side that suggests it's not that devs just dont care about us.

 

[Paul_cz]

People in the thread completely missing the point, smh

 

[Haggisman]

thread wasn't intended to talk about how PC games have been watered down in general due to console development.

But that's exactly what most people mean when they talk about "console ports"?

Arkham Knight was just a badly written poorly optimised game (on any platform, as you've said yourself).

The majority of people, when they say "console port"/"PC version"/"<insert phrase of choice here>" mean a game designed for consoles which has also been released on PC, and the PC version is not up to the standards of PC only games because of the limitations of the intended target system

 

[Seanspeed]

But that's exactly what most people mean when they talk about "console ports"?

I think you're the one misunderstanding what people are referring to when they say a "bad port"

Arkham Knight was just a badly written poorly optimised game (on any platform, as you've said yourself).

The majority of people, when they say "console port"/"PC version"/"<insert phrase of choice here>" mean a game designed for consoles which has also been released on PC, and the PC version is not up to the standards of PC only games because of it's intended target system

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I've discussed it with many people, many times and there was never any confusion over the use of the word 'port' or whatever. Just talking about the general state of a game version, typically from a technical standpoint. Even before a multiplatform game comes out, we usually talk about the 'PC port'. Whether it's actually, literally being ported or not doesn't matter, it's just used interchangeably to mean 'PC version'.

And no, Arkham Knight was not badly written or poorly optimized for consoles. Quite the opposite. It is one of the genuine examples of a game that got the short end of the stick on the PC side. A 'bad port' or 'bad version', whatever you want to call it.

 

[Jeps]

Sure we do get better quality games a lot of the time (better visuals, more options or higher player counts for example) but we also get straight up broken games as well, something that consoles do not get. Games like Arkham Knight or Assasins creed Unity would never have been released in such a poor state on consoles and they are just some of the most recent worst offenders. Its been an issue for a long time and is still a problem. Fallout 4 is great but the engine still ***** itself if the framerate goes too high and the simplified dialog system was clearly implemented to be more console friendly. It still requires ini modification in order to support certain resolutions or to simply disable mouse acceleration. Bethesda is well versed in PC releases so there is no excuse for these small but very annoying problems.

As for straight up ports, the do exist. A lot of old platform exclusives are showing up on steam, things like final fantasy 7, 8 and 9. They are straight up ports of games that were never intended for PC release and as expected have limited options and fps/resolution locks. Dark souls 1 was the same. It was never intended for PC release. It took an online petition from the players for from soft to release it on PC and from were upfront from the start that it would be a straight up port. Thats why dark souls 1 is locked to 720p 30fps and has abysmal keyboard mouse support to the point its basically unplayable without a gamepad.

The thing is, with the true ports people don't really mind the problems. You are getting access to games that would never have been released on the PC otherwise which is great for everybody. The problem comes when new released have these sort of issues as there is no excuse for it.

 

[Devrij]

Good post Op. I think a lot of people neglect the fact that a broken pc game is also broken on console. There are the odd games that clearly haven't had much time put into changing the UI or adding graphics options for pc gamers that are still deserving of criticism of course. The majority of poor running or sloppy games are down to overall poor design though.

The question today isn't whether we get bad ports though, it's more relevant to point out games that are released to everyone in an unfinished state, often by big publishers. That's more symptomatic of other issues and the willingness of too many players to preorder. This, I think, is what people should really be moaning about when they say console port.

 

[Haggisman]

And no, Arkham Knight was not badly written or poorly optimized for consoles. Quite the opposite. It is one of the genuine examples of a game that got the short end of the stick on the PC side. A 'bad port' or 'bad version', whatever you want to call it.

I dunno, a quick google does show several results about bugs on the console versions as well.

Regardless, I still maintain that when the majority of people say "console port" they mean "game which has been developed for consoles and happens to have been released on PC as well", so the phenomenon you're talking about in your OP doesn't actually exist

Edit: in fact you've partly mentioned it in your OP: "What constitutes a 'good version' for us is a much higher standard than what a console gamer considers a 'good version'. "

This is the key fact.

A game which is released on PS4/Xbone locked to 720p@30fps with non-customisable controls designed for a controller is to be expected
The exact same game released on PC locked to 720p@30fps with non-customisable controls designed for a controller isn't going to be received well...

 

[Aretak]

Good post, this is the only forum where I still see people bring up poor pc ports

I assume this must be the only gaming forum you visit in that case, given the hundreds upon hundreds of threads dedicated to the topic at places like NeoGAF. Not that I'd ever recommend visiting that cesspit, but still. It's a constant source of discussion on another PC-specific gaming forum that I visit as well. Not to mention the Steam forums, which are always full of people complaining about bad ports. Frankly, a lot of the more obnoxious PC ports are likely to pass most people here by I think, given the focus on larger, Western-developed games. Something like the PC port of Dynasty Warriors 8 for example, which is a messy port of the PS3 version rather than the massively superior PS4 edition, has had co-op play removed (something that even the Vita version included) and doesn't even have mouse support.

 

[Seanspeed]

Sure we do get better quality games a lot of the time (better visuals, more options or higher player counts for example) but we also get straight up broken games as well, something that consoles do not get. Games like Arkham Knight or Assasins creed Unity would never have been released in such a poor state on consoles and they are just some of the most recent worst offenders. Its been an issue for a long time and is still a problem. Fallout 4 is great but the engine still ***** itself if the framerate goes too high and the simplified dialog system was clearly implemented to be more console friendly. It still requires ini modification in order to support certain resolutions or to simply disable mouse acceleration. Bethesda is well versed in PC releases so there is no excuse for these small but very annoying problems.

AC Unity was indeed released in a 'poor state' on consoles. It had dips into the teens and was generally criticized by console and PC gamers alike. It also had all manner of bugs/glitches on all platforms.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about where the PC version is singled out by PC gamers as evidence of how nobody cares about them, yet the game was equally problematic on consoles.

And this is not unusual. Bad performance, unstable game save states, bugs and glitches, even game-breaking ones. All of this happens on consoles, too.

That's more symptomatic of other issues and the willingness of too many players to preorder. This, I think, is what people should really be moaning about when they say console port.

I dont think pre-orders are really the issue(or cause) at all, but that's a topic for another day.

I dunno, a quick google does show several results about bugs on the console versions as well.

Regardless, I still maintain that when the majority of people say "console port" they mean "game which has been developed for consoles and happens to have been released on PC as well", so the phenomenon you're talking about in your OP doesn't actually exist

Edit: in fact you've partly mentioned it in your OP: "What constitutes a 'good version' for us is a much higher standard than what a console gamer considers a 'good version'. "

This is the key fact.

A game which is released on PS4/Xbone locked to 720p@30fps with non-customisable controls designed for a controller is to be expected
The exact same game released on PC locked to 720p@30fps with non-customisable controls designed for a controller isn't going to be received well...

Arkham Knight had relatively minor issues on consoles. Certainly nothing significant or outrage-worthy. It generally played and ran quite solid(albeit at 30fps, of course).

And WHY are you still talking about the term 'console port'? lol

I dont get it. Where did I say anything about 'console ports'? I said 'PC ports', which isn't meant literally, it's just a term everybody uses for 'PC version of a game'. There should be no confusion over this. And yes, people thinking PC games always get the short end of the stick IS a real thing. A couple people here are arguing so in this very thread.