While I didn't play ARMA 2, I did play EVE Online and Quake, while I played Morrowind on the console. Your argument is stupid, just as general "Elitist" arguments always are.

http://img195.imageshack.us/f/unnecessarydone.jpg/

I'd like to have the other 49 pages now.

Yes, I'm quite serious.

Assuming bugfree, and the ability to save the options in case of starting another character.

No i'm simply stating that the Market dictacts that these types of games only sale on the PC which they do because the market for these types of complex games are on the PC which they are.

That means the market for these games is not on the console systems which they are not.

sweet pick weres the source?

I'd hate to break it to you, but the precious PC market everyone points to as a paragon? Yeah, simpler than dirt these days too. I'm not defending consoles, but condemning them is hypocritical.

Before you call me a console fan boy, know that I play the overwhelming majority of my games on PC.

Simpler as dirt; im confused seeing as i just installed hearts of iron and have an active subscription to eve online?

Post 1 of this thread. I think it makes for an excellent survey.

Seriously throw some more options put it up on some website as a poll survey. Then post links to every major gaming site, reddit, digg, and v then see what wins out and what doesnt.

Sure, I'd wait 15 years. I'm busy modding Morrowind any ways.

Dude, you've missed the point entirely. I played MW on the XBox, and you will not find someone who is a harder critic of Oblivion than I. The issue isn't related to "Console vs PC," it's related to "Casual vs hardcoe." If anything, there are considerably more casual gamers on the PC than any other console thanks to the prevalence of flash games.

Yes, it is simpler than dirt, because in order to hang on to whatever share of the market it has left it feels the need to be on par with consoles design-wise. Except in the indie world, which is holding on pretty well and even flourishing for some (Matrix, Jeff Vogel, etc...).

Where the devs and publishers go wrong is that they think it's one big industry with PCers and Consolers but it's actually two industries comprised of customers who think differently about gaming. On the one side you have consolers who just want to plug and play and game till mom or the wife says "bedtime". They want their fun right now. None of that delayed gratification that the nerds love so much. Then you have the PC folks, who are more akin to ham radio enthusiasts than consolers in that they often tinker with their chosen platform (upgrading and whatnot) they also tend to be very much into deep, complicated games that often don't have a payoff till many hours into a game (or years if you're a War in the Pacific player). Enter the game publishers who want to get money from both groups of gamers in one fell swoop so they make their games cross platform. This requires simplifying them to work on consoles and "hey while we're at it lets stop making features for both platforms because, hey we sell more for consoles anyway. Screw the PC users. They can either assimilate or go away." Do people game across the two platforms? Sure, even I like to slum once in awhile with the beatnic opium den that is the X-box. But my loyalties will always be to the country club.

But I think in the long run this is good for PCs because indie devs will sprout up and take up the slack. Which is why I think there should be a form of segregation in the games industry. Devs right out of college should decide who they want to dev for: Pcs or consoles. This way both sides win with great games that are exclusive to their respective platforms without fear of one tainting the other design-wise. Yes, the urge to grab more money by making a game for both will be great but they just need to man up and resist it for the good of all. Metaphorically I'm saying, for game developement at least, seperate water fountains and restaurant seating are a good idea.

This isn't the place for immature platform wars :nono: