COH2 into the E-sport - Casting mode -

Sorta off topic, but PC studios really need to expand their target audience to make these costly features possible (like Dota2 style spectator mode). A large chunk of people playing games these days are teenagers that won't spend twice as much for a nice gaming rig when they can get a low maintenance console for $250, and relax on couch while playing it on a big screen TV + play split screen when friends are over.

When the next generation of consoles release, these PC studios need to start releasing to console also, since they will definitely be capable of running those games with a 7950 or whatever similar caliber GPU they have. Then we just need the mass production of console compatible usb mouse/keyboard, and the potential sales for games like this will skyrocket.

Errrr no. This time I come prepared for my rebuttal!

The average gamer is over 30 years old. That means they should have the cash to purchase a rig IF they so desire.The problem with PC, is that it is ahead of the game. Its ahead in its modularity, which means it is ahead of the distribution model (which leads to "piracy").

Cost. This is total bullshit, and people that say a console is cheaper than a gaming PC, has never done the math correctly. For educational purposes lets do it:

-You can get a gaming PC for $500 bucks, that runs the newest games (at max graphics), if you know where to look. Granted, it will have generic hardware, and you'll have to replace it soon enough, but you can play at 60fps. I built a $1500 PC (including speakers, monitor, etc), and it has lasted my since 2007 without any upgrades whatsoever (I can play Bioshock Infinite on lowest settings, but hey, I can play it). That's almost 6 years. Divide the investment on a yearly basis: that's like $300 bucks a year.

-You can use your computer for other things. I don't mean movies and music. I mean you can actually use it to compliment your lifestyle and job. It means it helps you be productive and in some cases, net you money.Zing!

-You save on controllers. You don't need to purchase any at all. Those you do rarely break unless you are doing it wrong. I still have my shitty microsoft mouse. $6 bucks. Extra Xbox controller: $36 bucks. Fuck me, right?

-Games are cheaper: The average AAA PC game is $10 bucks less in the U.S. than the average console game. Add those up over a 5 year span (the average cycle for a console's life) and you get plenty of extra games every year. As a PC Gaming is, for the most part, universal. That means if you purchase a game cheaper from an asian market and use that cd key, it works (mind you, ther'es a lot of illegal scammers out there). NTSC vs PAL means you are restricted to the market THEY want to you purchase from. Zing!

All in all, bang for buck, PC wins in the financial department. What's more, the PC is like a high performance car: you can tweak it to match your preference, and even pull extra juice from it, if you so desire.

WHY then, are consoles more popular? Big companies want to scream "piracy". Now they are even pulling into to the free distribution model, which is done to compete against "piracy".

Why aren't games more awesome looking and full of new never before seen features? Because console technology is the bar, and it is a very limited bar. If a developer, like Crytek once did, wanted to push game graphics to the limit, we'd be at least two graphical generations ahead by now.

Look at how games progressed in the 90's. Consoles were a big thing, but the biggest technological pushes, that transitioned into consoles, were done by the PC industry.

I kind of agree, but not on the controller. I paid 120€ for my keyboard (Zowie Celeritas, mjam) + around 50€ or so for my mouse (Razer DeathAdder Black Edition). You can definitively spend a lot of money on peripherals, and if you're into the competitive side of games, you're more likely to do so.

it doesn't matter, one day they will all be the same thing. Consoles, PC's, TVs, Mobile phones ect. We are just stuck inbetween the modern age and the future. All that matters in the present is that CoH2 is a PC game and it should be fairly successful in the current (online distribution) market. \\

The PC will always be ahead of game and console will always be behind the game

Errrr no. This time I come prepared for my rebuttal!

The average gamer is over 30 years old. That means they should have the cash to purchase a rig IF they so desire.

Source on this? As someone who is less than 30 and who routinely listens to 9 other Justin Biebers spam voice chat in-game, I would lay strong doubt to that first claim.

Cost. This is total bullshit, and people that say a console is cheaper than a gaming PC, has never done the math correctly. For educational purposes lets do it:

-You can get a gaming PC for $500 bucks, that runs the newest games (at max graphics), if you know where to look. Granted, it will have generic hardware, and you'll have to replace it soon enough, but you can play at 60fps. I built a $1500 PC (including speakers, monitor, etc), and it has lasted my since 2007 without any upgrades whatsoever (I can play Bioshock Infinite on lowest settings, but hey, I can play it). That's almost 6 years. Divide the investment on a yearly basis: that's like $300 bucks a year.

Interesting. I bought my ps3 in 2007 for $500 (less than $400 considering I traded in my ps2). Compared to your $300/year PC, that feels like a bargain. I'm not a math major anymore, but even if it was an xbox with yearly online fees and shoddy equipment that needs replacement, my calculations see consoles as considerably cheaper.

I do not mean to stray too far. I love my ps3 and my PC, and would hate to choose 1 over another.

A PC may cost more, but consoles games are more primitive, and a console has none of the other diverse utility and functionality a PC has. Most console games can be played on a PC as well, even with a gamepad if you so desire. The same is not true of consoles in reverse.

Well built PCs also retain their ability to both play next gen games as well as other software.

For cost, PCs are far more cost effective.

Source on this? As someone who is less than 30 and who routinely listens to 9 other Justin Biebers spam voice chat in-game, I would lay strong doubt to that first claim.

Source, and (basically the same) source. The data is not very well presented, but it is ESA, which makes it a somewhat credible source if nothing else.

The aforementioned Biebers are the ones that actually bother to spam on voice chat though, annoyingly enough >_<

A PC may cost more, but consoles games are more primitive , and a console has none of the other diverse utility and functionality a PC has. Most console games can be played on a PC as well, even with a gamepad if you so desire. The same is not true of consoles in reverse.

Well built PCs also retain their ability to both play next gen games as well as other software.

For cost, PCs are far more cost effective.

Meaning what exactly? I can tell you one thing for sure: If company of heroes 2 was designed for consoles (yes rts on console is bad, it's just an example) then some of our complaints with coh2 simply wouldn't exist. Console games don't have that annoying habit, implemented by PC devs, of promising more features post-launch via DLC. When you buy a product, you get a complete package. There is no nonsense of promising 'better replay features' or 'making coh2 an esport' post-launch.

PCs and consoles both have their +'s and -'s, but it's a definite minus for PCs that have the growing habit of releasing incomplete products.

Console games don't have that annoying habit, implemented by PC devs, of promising more features post-launch via DLC. When you buy a product, you get a complete package.

True. They usually just release shit games with no promise of further features.

What you're talking about isn't content that would be included on launch if it were a console game, it's stuff that they wouldn't tell you about and then charge you for as DLC.

Console games don't have that annoying habit, implemented by PC devs, of promising more features post-launch via DLC. When you buy a product, you get a complete package. There is no nonsense of promising 'better replay features' or 'making coh2 an esport'

1) Implying post-launch support available on PCs but not consoles is a bad thing against PCs. It allows for patching, balancing and game development beyond launch.

2) Implying better replay functions would be sold as optional buyable DLC, which they certainly will not.

3) Implying PCs capacity to handle optional payed content DLC is a bad thing. As long as they arent pay-to-win, ofc.

4) Implying console games are "complete" when launched. Which they most certainly are not. Instead developers cut content, diversity and functions in order to simplify the game down through shortcutsmin order to meet deadlines and reduce complexity. You must be too young to remember how incredibly buggy console games have been in the past. And they still are. Games designed to be crossported to consoles bottleneck developers massively, and turn what could have been a far more complex and better game on PC, into a shit, cut down, lowesr common denominator product, as throttled by the limitations of consoles.

You seem to be a master of making false implicationsl and then arguing against them as if the other person had ever said them.

All of those demonstrate how PC is better than console. Console games are systematically crippled by the limitations of the platform as well as the available input interfaces (read: gamepads). There is no post launch support.

All of this is particularly and even more so true for RTS, which has ZERO console representation.
This fact, alone and in and of itself, is proofmpositive of the inferiority of consoles as a gaming platform, to PCs.

I understand you tried to shoehorn an argument against PC releases not edtending their deadlines until their product is completely finished into this, as well as a complaint against paid DLC overall. But this is no argument in favor of consoles. Companies that 5hit around with unfinished games that dont meet their stated promises, like WarZ, deserve a special place in hell, that is true. They shouldnt advertise for and promise features they do not have, which is essentially illegal. But this is not the case in CoH2. Second, paid DLC is a great and economically viable way to enrich players experience in exchange for equity. For example the Krieg skins in DoW2. Very very cool, cost a pittance, do not change balance, and greatly increased my enjoyment of playing IG in DoW2.

That the full spread of community desired replay functions would be included, has been promised internally. The ability to do this on the PC platform allows Relic to focus and dedicate effort on more vital elements to the game before launch. Logically, whats the point to a replay system, if you dont first provide a game that people actuqlly want to cast due to its ingame balance and functionality? Makes more sense to make a better game first, and then spend time on providing means for the community to broadcast that better game,. On console, any improved replay functionality would be summarilly cut from the product, because it didnt make launch, and there is no means to provide it post-launch.

1) Implying post-launch support available on PCs but not consoles is a bad thing against PCs. It allows for patching, balancing and game development beyond launch.

2) Implying better replay functions would be sold as optional buyable DLC, which they certainly will not.

3) Implying PCs capacity to handle optional payed content DLC is a bad thing. As long as they arent pay-to-win, ofc.

4) Implying console games are "complete" when launched. Which they most certainly are not. Instead developers cut content, diversity and functions in order to simplify the game down through shortcutsmin order to meet deadlines and reduce complexity. You must be too young to remember how incredibly buggy console games have been in the past. And they still are. Games designed to be crossported to consoles bottleneck developers massively, and turn what could have been a far more complex and better game on PC, into a shit, cut down, lowesr common denominator product, as throttled by the limitations of consoles.

You seem to be a master of making false implicationsl and then arguing against them as if the other person had ever said them.

I implied none of those things. If you don't understand my post, please don't respond to it. I am primarily a PC gamer, I just feel the need to play devil's advocate since this will obviously be a "PC MASTER RACE!!!" forum.

1. Post-launch support is available for console too. Patching and balancing does happen on my ps3, and I never implied it was bad.

2. I neither said nor implied it would be paid dlc.

3. Not implied. My ps3 also handles optional, paid DLC, and no it's not a bad thing at all.

4. The idea of completeness comes from the fact that you know exactly what you're getting when you buy a console game. The notion of advertising post-launch features X, Y, and Z before the game ever launches does not really exist for consoles. Both console and PC devs occasionally release games that feel unfinished and rushed - that's not exclusive to consoles.

Like you pointed out PC has dominance in some genres, like RTS games, but consoles excel in other areas like sports or racing.

Also, getting together with friends to play some super smash bros. is a lot less nerdy than setting up a CoH LAN party! Just saying.

nerdy is in the eye of the beholder.

I implied none f those things.

So you basically had no point, except a now debunked Devils Advocate.
Ok, dude.

I implied none of those things. If you don't understand my post, please don't respond to it. I am primarily a PC gamer, I just feel the need to play devil's advocate since this will obviously be a "PC MASTER RACE!!!" forum.

1. Post-launch support is available for console too. Patching and balancing does happen on my ps3, and I never implied it was bad.

2. I neither said nor implied it would be paid dlc.

3. Not implied. My ps3 also handles optional, paid DLC, and no it's not a bad thing at all.

4. The idea of completeness comes from the fact that you know exactly what you're getting when you buy a console game. The notion of advertising post-launch features X, Y, and Z before the game ever launches does not really exist for consoles. Both console and PC devs occasionally release games that feel unfinished and rushed - that's not exclusive to consoles.

Like you pointed out PC has dominance in some genres, like RTS games, but consoles excel in other areas like sports or racing.

Also, getting together with friends to play some super smash bros. is a lot less nerdy than setting up a CoH LAN party! Just saying.

You are wasting people's time.

I was correcting the spread of misinformation, bias, and overall lack of knowledge about consoles! Your lack of comprehension is not a reflection of me.

To go back a bit closer to topic, I think I could draw strong parallels between the last few posts and why mirror matches (with people specializing in 1 faction) wouldn't work well in CoH2.

I think there was one proven case in particular, where a console game had 'extra content' already on the disc when it shipped, but could only be accessed when paid for. The reason I brought it up, is because I think in this one particular case, it was initially supposed to be in the game. That was disgusting.

I was correcting the spread of misinformation, bias, and overall lack of knowledge about consoles! Your lack of comprehension is not a reflection of me.

Right, we shot down both of your arguments, someone else providing the sources for me. Consoles used to be great! But they not only separate gamers, they drive the market into a damn oligarchy where three companies control how games are made. Don't know about you, but I am against this.

Back on topic...

E-Sports, as has been said before, is completely dependent on the community. We need a solid, inclusive community, that can drive the game forward. Observer mode, casting tools, replay tools. All of these things are simply tools to enhance and streamline the experience.

CoH doesn't have to be an "e-sport" to be competitive either, but it is the general direction popular competitive games have taken.

If the community is strong enough then e-sports will come. the developers will support it if they have reason.

Replay and casting improvements have been promised.

Its more important at this time to have a good game worth casting, rather than a game not worth casting, with better casting functions.

Relic have traditionally been pretty good about supporting dedicated casters.