Fall of Cybertron not coming to PC, Cry havok, and unleash the the Carnivacs of Apocalyps! Options

[BB Shockwave]

I mean, seriously...

Is it THAT hard to program a port to PC? Really? And their reason is, get this... "because it’s outside the area of expertise".

Yes, the game using the same engine as WFC is outside the expertise for the same programmers who made WFC, suuuure.

Now I could go on about how we should hire Death's Head to force them to release the game to PC, but how about realistically? What could we do?

Would sending payment WELL in advance to pre-order the game for PC convince them? (IE, now?) 'Cause I would... and I bet many others would.

This post has been edited by BB Shockwave: Feb 23 2012, 07:58 AM

[Powered Convoy]

Time to buy a PS3 or X-Box 360 if you haven't already it would seem then.

Randy

[The Doctor Who]

Well... I was looking forward to FoC, but being a PC gamer, I guess I won't be playing it.

No, I'll tell you what this is. PC gamers expect more options. Screen resolution, FoV, texture options, a whole slew of graphics and gameplay settings that are common on PC games, while, from what I've seen, console gamers don't have, in part because they don't need them. I've noticed that often Console to PC ports will lack many of these options, suggesting that it may take a lot of work to add them after the fact.

Probably they just don't want to have to do that.

It would make a lot more sense than for the same guys who made WfC to suddenly declare they don't know how to make a PC game. WfC seemed to work quite well and I had a lot of fun with it on PC, but hey... I guess that's forty to fifty bucks I just saved. Makes me wonder if I really want that FoC Jazz as much now.


Oh who am I kidding, I'll have to get Jazz XD

[BB Shockwave]

It's especially surprising they'd cite these reasons, when WFC has gotten extremely good reviews for PC as well. And I never experienced any performance issues either.

Time to buy a PS3 or X-Box 360 if you haven't already it would seem then.

Randy

I will never buy a console to play ONE game.

And don't tell me about other console games... I keep track of what's coming out, none of them interest me. My gaming interests are Turn-Based and Real-Time Strategies, RPGs, puzzle games, and Diablo-like action RPGs - while most stuff on consoles are 'vanilla' hack and slash RPGs (basically, FPS with a sword), FPSs, God of War like action games, and of course, various racing/flying simulators.

I was the same way when Transformers Tatakai was made for PS2. I was not gonna buy a PS2 (and modchip it) to play ONE game that interest me.

I might borrow a console from a friend, or go to him and play the game, that's all. But already all the modding possibilites are totally lost for FoC, and imagine what talented modders could have done with a TF game containing combiners and Dinobots. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-screamer.gif)

This post has been edited by BB Shockwave: Feb 16 2012, 08:27 AM

[Vestras]

Crap in a hat.

I don't have the funds for a console jump, I've been getting by on portables and my left over PS2/Steam library for ages.


This annoys me a lot, but at the same time, considering how badly they handled the PC side of things on WFC, I'm not surprised (No server/room migration, no checks on cheater/hackers, no DLC cause they are jerks).

[gargunkle]

Disappointing I suppose. I played WfC on the PC. I prefer PC with mouse/keyboard for shooter games. However, I found WfC pretty annoying in robot mode with the perspective forced to the side of the character. And none of the bonus content came out for PC either, so I am not entirely surprised they aren't making this one for it.

I probably won't get FoC (or if I do, not until well after release).

[Powered Convoy]

Waits for Quantumhawk to post...

Randy

[Esser-Z]

Well balls.

[MrBlud]

Yes, the game using the same engine as WFC is outside the expertise for the same programmers who made WFC, suuuure.

Considering the jive poor job they did with the PC port for the first one....yes, I would say it is.

I feel bad for the people who only have a PC that wanted to play this but I can't fault the developers for not wanting to release an inferior product.

[Zodberg]

I imagine it is entirely possible for them to perhaps change their minds in the half year until the game is released.

[ZacWilliam1]

How is this news to anyone?

They've been saying exactly this since they announced the game. I give them points for focusing on what they're good at and hope it results in a better game.


-ZacWilliam, a console gamer and always has been. Computers are for the Internet. Gaming's for consoles.

This post has been edited by ZacWilliam1: Feb 16 2012, 08:55 AM

[BB Shockwave]

- BB Shockwave, depends on what your definition of "gaming" is. But I am gonna take a guess and say you probably weren't born yet when some of us were playing games on ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64.

Yes, the game using the same engine as WFC is outside the expertise for the same programmers who made WFC, suuuure.

Considering the jive poor job they did with the PC port for the first one....yes, I would say it is.

I feel bad for the people who only have a PC that wanted to play this but I can't fault the developers for not wanting to release an inferior product.

What poor job? It ran absolutely fine for me, only froze/crashed maybe once through my walkthroughs, and despite me turning the graphics up to max (on a dual-core pentium with 2 GB ram and an ASUS 8600 GT card) it had barely any lag at all.

I imagine it is entirely possible for them to perhaps change their minds in the half year until the game is released.

They didn't for the DOTM game... Though I am not sure that one used the same engine. I mean, WFC/FoC still uses the Unreal engine.

This post has been edited by BB Shockwave: Feb 16 2012, 09:00 AM

[MrBlud]

- BB Shockwave, depends on what your definition of "gaming" is. But I am gonna take a guess and say you probably weren't born yet when some of us were playing games on ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64.

Yes, the game using the same engine as WFC is outside the expertise for the same programmers who made WFC, suuuure.

Considering the jive poor job they did with the PC port for the first one....yes, I would say it is.

I feel bad for the people who only have a PC that wanted to play this but I can't fault the developers for not wanting to release an inferior product.

What poor job? It ran absolutely fine for me, only froze/crashed maybe once through my walkthroughs, and despite me turning the graphics up to max (on a dual-core pentium with 2 GB ram and an ASUS 8600 GT card) it had barely any lag at all.

"This annoys me a lot, but at the same time, considering how badly they handled the PC side of things on WFC, I'm not surprised (No server/room migration, no checks on cheater/hackers, no DLC cause they are jerks)."

[ZacWilliam1]

- BB Shockwave, depends on what your definition of "gaming" is. But I am gonna take a guess and say you probably weren't born yet when some of us were playing games on ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64.

Was that Pre-1976?

My Grandfather had a Commodore 64 (I think it's probably still in their basement.) I played a few games he programmed in for it. But we were always a console family. Collecovision with Atari attatchment. Then NES. Then, well every single major console (and some minor) released since then.

We had a couple computers during my childhood, but other than a stint with one of the Space Quest games, and Jeopardy, and You Don't Know Jack it didn't get gamed on much.

Console games just always seemed superior to me. You didn't ever have to worry about wether your system would run them or not or if you'd have to buy new hardware or patch or program or would just be out of luck. You just put the game in and played.


-ZacWilliam, to this day is uncomfortable gaming at his PC. I'd much rather be in a comfy chair with a controller and a big HD tv.

[Nyarlathotep]

Good, the less shoddy ports, the better. If it's developed on Console, keep it on Console.

[Esser-Z]

Good, the less shoddy ports, the better. If it's developed on Console, keep it on Console.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. No need for it to be a "shoddy port".

But, ah well. I'll live without the game. That's what I get--I miss a few games I want to play because I lack the consoles. On the flipside, I have access to the massive indie gaming field. S'cool.

[▲ndrusi]

I just want to know whether it's coming to 3DS.

No, I'll tell you what this is. PC gamers expect more options. Screen resolution, FoV, texture options, a whole slew of graphics and gameplay settings that are common on PC games, while, from what I've seen, console gamers don't have, in part because they don't need them. I've noticed that often Console to PC ports will lack many of these options, suggesting that it may take a lot of work to add them after the fact.

I can confirm that, if you've designed a piece of software around certain assumptions, suddenly converting all of those assumptions into configurable options is a royal pain in the ass.

[-VP-]

I spend enough on having a decent gaming rig and a Wii for the kids, I'm not forkingout the cash for a 360/PS3 just for this. They just lost a customer.

[Nyarlathotep]

Good, the less shoddy ports, the better. If it's developed on Console, keep it on Console.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. No need for it to be a "shoddy port".

Except time, money, and patience.

[Esser-Z]

Good, the less shoddy ports, the better. If it's developed on Console, keep it on Console.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. No need for it to be a "shoddy port".

Except time, money, and patience.

There is no reason people cannot put the effort in to make a good port and thereby gain additional income from the product.