Bringing PC exclusives to consoles - boon or bane?

This has been an age-old debate, with both console and PC gamers at loggerheads regarding the matter. So what exactly are the advantages of bringing games or franchises which were perceived as PC exclusives, to consoles? Or is it actually harming the gaming industry in general?

There are several aspects we need to analyze, before we can draw any satisfactory conclusion. The first one would be the profits, of course! Every game maker (or publisher) would obviously increase their profits if a successful PC game (or franchise) is brought to consoles, due to the increased user base. Also, people who only play games on consoles would also get a chance to experience these games. So, this would certainly result in immediate gains, both for the publisher/developer and the console gamers. But when the long term implications are considered, it paints a somewhat different picture.

When porting PC games to consoles, developers need to make a lot of compromises and trade-offs because consoles in general are a lot less powerful compared to gaming PCs. They need to find a balance so that the game performs reasonably well on consoles, while still making it as enjoyable as possible. Its a really tough task, which may sometimes even be unachievable due to the hardware limitations of consoles.

Ok, lets just say the developers did manage to port a PC game to the console along with some compromises, and the console gamers enjoyed it. This results in more game sales, which obviously translates to more profits. The game company gets buoyed by this response, hence they obviously plan the next game in the franchise so that it offers a similar experience to PC and console gamers right out of the box. Since consoles are quite underpowered compared to PCs, they have to develop the game primarily for consoles and then port it to the PC. On the surface, this may not seem like a problem. But doing this would result in a watered-down game for the PC, with only some graphical enhancements compared to console versions. This will surely alienate core fans of the series, which definitely hurts the game-makers in the long run. One way to achieve this without any compromise is to develop two different versions for PC and consoles, but it requires a lot of work and developers often feel that taking this approach would be a waste of their time and resources.

A classic example of this would be the Crysis games by Crytek. The first two games of the franchise (the original Crysis and its spin-off Crysis: Warhead) were technically marvelous open world games. Both were highly praised for their technical capabilities as well as their gameplay. When they were initially released, they remained exclusive to the PC. For the next game, the developers wanted to 'expand' the series to the consoles (read "make more money"). But it was impossible to create vast open worlds on current generation consoles at that point, due to technical limitations. Hence they eliminated the open world altogether, and settled for a game which played just like most other corridor shooters. The PC version did offer much prettier graphics, but no changes in the world or gameplay compared to console versions. This game (Crysis 2) sold well across all platforms, which prompted Crytek to even port the first two Crysis games to consoles. But the result was a mess, as reported by those who played them on console after initially playing them on PC. These decisions by Crytek (or maybe EA, who knows?) also left longtime fans of the series fuming. To combat this issue, Crytek decided to make the environment in Crysis 3 much bigger than Crysis 2, but it was still not a open world. The maps in Crysis 3 only gave the illusion of an open world, but they were just reasonably large areas 'boxed in' by clever use of environmental effects like hills, tress etc. Once again, the only 'advantage' it offered to PC gamers was the extremely gorgeous visuals. But Crysis 3 turned out to be such a dull and boring game that it failed to meet EA's sales expectations. 

Crytek worked on another game called 'Ryse: Son Of Rome" exclusively for XBox One, but it turned out to be a massive critical and commercial failure. Now, Crytek just has one project (the Homefront reeboot), and several reliable sources are indicting that Crytek may not survive as a game development studio for much longer (they recently laid off a lot of their employees). So its pretty much obvious that Crytek seems to have dug their own grave by focusing on short term profits over long term benefits.

Of course, this doesn't always have to be true. Some types of games can be brought to consoles without too many compromises. But usually, that just wouldn't be possible for most games because PCs are always technically superior to every console of that particular generation.

PC or Console? You decide!

So you want to have the best gaming experience, but confused whether you have to buy a console or a PC? Hopefully, this post should make your decision a bit easier. I'll be listing the advantages of both in detail. Read on!

You may prefer a console for the following reasons:-

• The initial cost of a console is much lower than a mid-range gaming PC. Usually, the cost of any current generation console would be just a little more than half the cost of a mid to high end gaming PC. 
• As of now, every console supports used games (although this scenario is likely to change soon). So you can just trade in your games for a price after you're done with them, or if you realize that you don't enjoy the game after buying it. This is almost impossible on PC due to aggressive DRM (Digital Rights Management) methods used for PC games.
• Playing games on a console is extremely simple and hassle free, compared to a PC. You don't need to have any knowledge of PCs, because console games do not involve changing settings to suit your hardware or troubleshooting compatibility issues. You just buy the game disc (or download a digital copy), pop it into your console and start playing instantly (although some current-gen consoles require the game to be installed first). 
• Unlike a PC, a console lasts for several years without the need to upgrade (consoles don't even support upgrading individual components). Once you buy a console, you can keep playing all the games released for it until the console actually becomes outdated and developers stop making games for it. So you save the cost of upgrades, which is inevitable on a PC (because you need to spend on upgrades quite often).
• Several excellent AAA games are console exclusives, and are never released for the PC (or released much later than on consoles). So it would make sense for you to go for a console which has the exclusives you like.

Now, here are some reasons why you may opt for a gaming PC:-

• Although a gaming PC usually costs a bomb initially, PC games are almost always priced lower than console games. Also, several major retail and digital game publishers hold sales at different points of the year, during which the games are sold dirt cheap. This actually makes the concept of 'used games' irrelevant in the world of PC gaming, because the games are sold at prices cheaper than used games during the sales. 
• A PC can be upgraded as often as needed. Yeah, it is expensive to upgrade PC components, but it allows you to enjoy the latest games at butter smooth frame-rates without compromising on the graphics or other qualities. On the other hand, consoles struggle to keep up the performance with the latest games, when they age a bit.
• PCs provide you with a choice of using the control scheme of your choice (like keyboard-mouse, gamepad, joystick or steering wheel), while you're stuck with the default gamepad on consoles. Different genres of games work best with certain control schemes (for example, first person shooters are best played with a keyboard and mouse, due to the pinpoint accuracy and aiming precision offered by the mouse).
• Modifications (commonly called 'mods') extend the life and replay value of a game much beyond its original intended estimation. As of now, mods are only possible on PCs. The possibilities with mods are endless. Also, the fact that most of these mods are fan-made (read 'free') is the icing on the cake!
• A gaming PC can also be used to perform general computing tasks, so it actually saves space (because you need not have two separate devices for computing and gaming). If you want a big-screen console experience on a PC, you can hook up your PC with your large screen Plasma TV quite easily.
• Indie games (which are low budget games developed by individuals or small game studios) have found a cozy little home on PCs. Some of these Indie games match or surpass high budget AAA games with respect to quality, and they're much cheaper too. As of now, Indie games are pretty much non-existent on consoles.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of pros and cons. In the end, what matters most is your enjoyment of playing games, irrespective of the platform on which you play them. So just consider these tips as general guidelines, and go for the platform which you feel is the most suitable for you. Happy gaming!

Reason why movies based on games usually flop

So there's this extremely popular game which has been lauded by critics and users, and this success usually tempts a movie studio or the game publishers themselves to cash in on the game's popularity by making a movie based on the game (or a game franchise). But then, why do such movies (which are based on a game or game franchise) almost always get panned by critics and fail miserably at the box office too? Here's my opinion and analysis on the reason this happens, although it may not be totally accurate.

The main focus of a game is to make the player interact with the game world and completely immerse him/her in it. Of course, most games do have an interesting premise and story, but those are just bonuses. For example, if a game doesn't really have a strong plot or story but has solid gameplay (such as the Left 4 Dead games), then the game is almost sure to be a success. On the other hand, a game with a really compelling plot but weak gameplay is not likely to find favor with critics or users. Of course, a game having both near-flawless gameplay as well as an excellent plot would obviously earn high acclaim, but a good story/plot is not always necessary for a game to succeed. The game just needs to provide a high level of immersion for the players by giving them a reasonably high degree of control over what actually happens in the game, and of course proper gameplay mechanics (for example, a shotgun should sound like a shotgun when fired, and not like a pistol).

When people make movies based on games, they fail to realize that the most important factor which was responsible for the game's success was its gameplay and player immersion. It is simply not possible to create that kind of experience with a movie, because watching a movie is always a passive activity which doesn't require (or rather, does not allow) any direct interaction with the movie's world or characters. Obviously, when its impossible for a movie to provide the aspect which made the game successful (that is, player interaction and immersion), it is often illogical to even consider that a movie based on a successful game or game franchise would also be successful. Of course, there have been a few successful movies based on games (such as 2010's Prince of Persia), but those are just exceptions which succeeded because the movie makers took a lot of liberty and the movies had little in common with the games they were based on.

Its high time these people stopped trying to make a quick buck by making movies based on games/game franchises, with the hope that the game's success will be replicated by the movie as well. It just doesn't work that way. If such movies are to succeed, they need to find a perfect balance in such a way that very little is common between the game and the movie, while still making it familiar to fans of the game. A big ask which is very much possible, but certainly not worth the risk.