PC gaming luminary John Carmack has called last week's troubled launch of FPS Rage on the platform a "cluster f***".
The issues were so severe they caused the usually mild-mannered Carmack to dish out the swear words.
"The driver issues at launch have been a real cluster !@#$," the coding legend told Kotaku, explaining that the biggest cause of the problem was the "wrong driver" getting released, so "half of our PC customers got a product that basically didn't work."
But the mass-complaints from PC gamers haven't just been aimed at the shooter's shoddy performance - some are simply disappointed that a title they hoped would be a tent pole for PC gaming simply doesn't feel designed for their platform at all.
In an outburst on a similar level to your parents admitting you were a horrible mistake, Carmack said simply his attention is no longer on the mouse-and-keyboard home of Doom and Quake.
"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack said. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterise it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version.
"A high end PC is nearly ten times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.
"Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."
He added: "You can choose to design a game around the specs of a high-end PC and make console versions that fail to hit the design point, or design around the specs of the consoles and have a high-end PC provide incremental quality improvements. We chose the latter."
As PC gaming stalwarts, we can't help but be a little bid saddened by these comments. Sniff.
Have a look at our Rage review if you haven't already.
Comments
90 comments so far...
EvilWaterman on 10 Oct '11 said:
I have rented this on PS3 and the texture pop in is awful. You turn around and about 2 sec later the texture will appear!
Ganja_Ninja on 10 Oct '11 said:
Worse. PC. Launch. This year.
Atinetro on 10 Oct '11 said:
Not that I care much for PC gaming, but this will definitely annoy some PC Elitists.
justforkicks101 on 10 Oct '11 said:
meh
brookie_2001 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Not having the PC as the lead platform... fair enough. Still PC gamers do expect a game they are able to play when they buy it. It took me till sunday to have the game in a playable state. I don't fancy spending 2 days fiddling with configs and drivers to have a game work.
The_KFD_Case on 10 Oct '11 said:
I comprehend Mr. Carmack's point of view - he raises some valid points. However, while I've been playing more on my Xbox 360 this month than on my PC/laptop, and in light of the fact that I was debating whether to pick up the PC or console version of Rage, given his statements, I'll probably go for the console version now. That means I can get it second hand and it will still work; the same is not true for a second-hand PC version of the same game.
If a game on the PC, any game, feels and looks like a poorly put together port then I consider that poor treatment of the customer(s). That being the case I'm not going to pay full whack for such a game, and if I'm not going to do that I may as well get a console version that has dropped in price and which I can trade-in for a return on my investment after I've played it. This practice of mine will not stop until the day console games end up like PC games (i.e. can't be re-used), and if that happens I will buy even fewer games than I do now and will go for the cheaper version which (if current trends continue) will be the PC version...which brings us back to the issue about poorly ported games, which further decrease my desire to buy new games. See the vicious cycle there? Quality does matter.
Headsrinker on 10 Oct '11 said:
If this is the case, then surely the development of games will stagnate for long periods between next gen console releases?? This can not possibly be a 'good thing' for a creative industry?!?
There's already plenty of evidence of development stagnation (same-y looking games), hence many console gamer's cries for the next gen consoles. Other than BF3 (designed for the PC incidentally), pretty much all other game releases in the last 2-3 years have failed to deliver any WOW factor. I understand why games are designed for console (money), but in the long run i think the gaming industry will suffer as a result of this.
puzl on 10 Oct '11 said:
PC gamers made Carmack a millionaire. Ah how quickly he abandons them.
id is a washed up, irrelevant studio now anyway. They are a 2011 studio, with a 1990s mentality. They literally still have the same guy making the engine and the same team of artists (who are actually some of the best in the industry), yet nobody to write a decent story or make an actual gaming experience outside their strict FPS comfort zone. Ars Technica said it best when they proclaimed id software to be creatively backrupt. Ater playing RAGE and being massively disappointed at just how generic it is, I can wholeheartedly agree.
rubblemaker on 10 Oct '11 said:
Its not annoying thats he's acknowledging consoles as a more viable business opportunity. (though that in itself is proven arguable every time someone says it and a massive PC community take issue with it). Many developers make console ports to the PC that look far superior to Rage. The problem is exactly HOW bad Rage looks. The low res textures and low polygon count objects are not even comparable to first gen consoles in many places. They've simply released a graphically atrocious game on the PC. That said I'm starting to read reports of the console version looking as bad. And the texture pop-in every time you turn is infuriating. Thats a result of the textures unloading every time you look away and seems as bad on consoles as on PC's.
terrible terrible shame.
rustym on 10 Oct '11 said:
I bought it on PS3 on early bits pop in is evident but doesnt ruin game and as it gets going it seems to stop, or I really dont notice it, im really liking it so far (4hrs in)
pRM8 on 10 Oct '11 said:
It makes absolutely no difference what the lead platform is, you still have to make sure you release a playable gaming experience on all the platforms you are releasing on, simple as that. The fact is evidently clear that you didn't do this Mr Carmack and non of your bulls**t explanations can excuse that.
rhyfel on 10 Oct '11 said:
why would a games publisher want to concentrate on a pc lead format when all thats going to happen is piracy piracy piracy, if you actually payed for your games "which i know some of you do, but a hell of alot dont" you might get game publishers who use the pc as lead format, and until the pc games market become financialy viable you might as well keep ya mouth shut cos it ain,t gona happen.
DoomGuy84 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Ive said it for years and ill say it again - pc gaming is dying. If somebody like John Carmack admits it then you should accept it. The glory days of the 90's is over, no one wants to spend £1000 to play a game that they can get on a £200 console and have virtually the same experience without having to spend days installing drivers and f*cking around with configs etc.
toaplan on 10 Oct '11 said:
Disappointing, especially in light of id's history in pc-gaming. At least they have tried to patch things up quickly. And there's always DICE to fix the situation...
delmariachi on 10 Oct '11 said:
If its worse than Dead Island then.. Ohhhh Deearrr!!
TheCrimsonFenix on 10 Oct '11 said:
Next gen would only give us more of the same, just fancier looking. Think I'll stick with what we have now with regards to developer ability, thanks very much.
Devs bitch about lack of new tech, gamers agree with it, both think more powerful hardware will magically fix it.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong.
Happens every generation when we get more of the same. People completely ignore the few but great games that have come out over the last few years, act like there was a gen of consoles that gushed nothing but quality titles, and somehow think that some new tech is going to put an end to that "creative block" and make developers flourish with new original and fantastic ideas! -yawn-
Have had fun with a s**tload of games this generation and they're sure as hell fun and great to play without the need of more ram and other s**t. Developers don't need extremely powerful or even more powerful hardware than we have now to make their vision come true. The tech is right there in front of you. Utilise it. Get to grips with it and maybe, just maybe, you'll become one of those developers able to create a game where the gameplay/story/whatever else, speaks for itself and a game that doesn't need the greatest graphics of all time to sell it. Wanting nothing but photorealistic explosions and corridor textures for yet another samey third or first person shooter, is nothing but overkill pampering to the techheads.
middle finger on 10 Oct '11 said:
Sexy and funny blond girl have met smart and very intelligent, but not good looking guy. After few years of their relationship they decided to have a baby. 'This will be most adorable child ever, with my look and easy going character and yours intelligence'- she said.
'What if it'll inherit yours intelligence and my look and charact?- he said.
Rage is that bastard kid of Borderlands and Fallout3.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
Making great games made Carmack a millionaire. PC gamers didn't give him money out of charity. He hasn't abandoned PC gamers, he simply admits that with the current state of the market, consoles must be the lead platform. I see them more as an engine developer these days than a game developer anyway. The biggest problem id have no isn't that they won't stray outside their comfort zone, it's that they have strayed outside their comfort zone with Rage. They should stick to what they're best at, which is FPS games with stunning graphics and retro gameplay, something that many PC gamers seem to crave. I'd certainly buy Doom 4 or Quake 5 (if it were developed by id) in a heartbeat. Rage hasn't even slightly interested me for even one second since it's announcement.
Sleepaphobic on 10 Oct '11 said:
Yup people should not buy this trash. After the patch I can continue the story and a lot of gfx probs have been fixed but there's still screen tearing and now the game looks worse than before. Dunno how they managed that. Not so sure how all these bugs weren't picked up by reviewers as pretty much everybody has the same problems and they were probably using earlier drivers without the patch.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
I know that Crysis isn't the greatest game ever, but aside from it being a technical showcase, I've had lots of fun with it. The weird thing is, I've had a lot more fun with the 360 version of the game than with the PC version. Seriously. Seeing Crysis running on a console at all (I really don't care about less impressive visuals) and the fact that I've been enjoying it immensely has made me realise more than ever before that you really don't need more than 512MB of RAM to have fun.
As I'm sure you'll agree, gameplay is more important than graphics. Every. Time.
Nice graphics are nothing more than a bonus.
divinebeetle on 10 Oct '11 said:
I have a feeling you will be saying it for years too
And you don't need to spend £1000 to build a capable gaming PC
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 10 Oct '11 said:
No that would be Dead Island, modders fixing the dam thing!
EvilWaterman on 10 Oct '11 said:
Yeah, i have to agree with that to be fair!
Mmmmgrolsch on 10 Oct '11 said:
Thats the problem right there. You and many other boring f**ks have been repeating this same bulls**t line day in and day out
I'm not a PC gamer but I know this is utter bulls**t that you talk. It does not cost £1000 to play a game 
I've couls have bought a top end PC and had s**t loads of cash left over.
While we are talking PCs I have to question the expense of console gaming. Games cost £10+ more expensive on consoles and after adding up how many games I've bought for my PS3 this gen and the total is 80 which would be around £800 extra on the cost of the PC versions plus I've bought 2 PS3s as the launch one died which cost £725 so thats £1,500
So please can people just shut the f**k up with the myth that PC gaming is so expensive when it is in fact cheaper.
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 10 Oct '11 said:
I agree on some level as jaded as I am, as I think GTA4 should have had lower fidelity graphics. And I think they should have just expanded on scope of the San Andreas. Rather than the condensed game we got, with the push for better visuals. And don’t get me wrong having constraints in some cases breeds creativity. Bioshock Infinites sky setting is largely due to URE’s p**s poor draw distance (Ram limits play a large part) than having lots of power to play with. And an older example would be the metal gear games too. There is a BUT however with your train of thought should we not just drop down a console generation? Or two perhaps, or even maybe we should go right back to the “good old” 8-bit days?
This should drill home the requirement for new hardware, yes that right running in flash!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drGGE_hE ... re=related
pRM8 on 10 Oct '11 said:
So you've been saying it for years have you? And PC gaming is still very much around? Does this not tell you something?
Its the decent devs that put effort into platforms other than consoles that are dying...
nolim on 10 Oct '11 said:
Having played the game extensively this weekend on PC i have to say i'm loving it. The graphics are fantastic and the frame rate ultra smooth so i'm not sure what people are complaining about with regard to how it looks. Sure there were some issues at launch particularly with screen trear, but just using +r_swapInterval 1 in the launch options sorted that, at least until saturday when an Nvidia driver update forced Vsync off and required you to make a Rage profile to turn it back on again, but i don't think you can blame Id for that!
If you want to enable or boost graphics options on pc then just create a config file (rageconfig.cfg) in the rage base directory, in much the same way as you might have done for Doom3 of Quake, this will enable you to tweak just about everything and get max performance out of your PC. There are plenty of examples online so if you don't know what to do simply copy someone else's file.
As for the consoles being development lead, get over it, it's just the way things are these days, pc gamers still get the best version of every cross platform title so it's not like the devs are screwing pc owners over. Modern game developemnt is expensive so until the next console generation is released then six year old hardware is going to remain the baseline.
KK-Headcharge78 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Not interested in this childish PC vs console war of nonsense but games should be released in full working order regardless of what platform it is for, it is i guess to be expected that the leading sales platform will eventually always become the lead platform for developers.
I have played Rage on the 360 and it looks and plays brilliantly so not sure what the f**k Id are playing at with the other platforms, it murders Fallout and borderlands for me, did someone nearly suggest Fallout was trouble free???
Fallout 3 was a f**king train wreck!!
Headsrinker on 10 Oct '11 said:
Why is everybody going on about visuals?? Gaming development isn't just about visuals and graphics. Its as much about structure and depth as it is about graphics. New technology is being developed all the time for PC's, this technology should be harnessed and experimented with by games developers to push the limits of gaming and to push the whole industry creatively forward. Consoles are slowing the whole evolution of gaming down now that they are the preferred platform of choice in most cases. I completely understand why consoles are the preferred platform of choice (because developers want the biggest return on their product), but you cant escape from the fact that, technologically speaking, its slowing the whole industry down.
gmcb007 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Hang on, didn't Carmack badmouth the consoles a while back and said they were still focused on making the PC version better than the consoles but now he's saying that it was built around consoles?
Excuses, excuses Carmack, shouldn't have been going around bragging about RAGE being the best game ever made!
Headsrinker on 10 Oct '11 said:
Mmmmgrolsch
Thats the problem right there. You and many other boring f**ks have been repeating this same bulls**t line day in and day out I'm not a PC gamer but I know this is utter bulls**t that you talk. It does not cost £1000 to play a game
While we are talking PCs I have to question the expense of console gaming. Games cost £10+ more expensive on consoles and after adding up how many games I've bought for my PS3 this gen and the total is 80 which would be around £800 plus I've bought 2 PS3s which cost £725 so thats £1,500 I've couls have bought a top end PC and had s**t loads of cash left over.
So please can people just shut the f**k up with the myth that PC gaming is so expensive when it is in fact cheaper.
Well said!
You saved me from typing it!
AegisK on 10 Oct '11 said:
id basically tore apart their reputation by not designing properly for PC. Other companies can design both for PS3 and 360, so why can't they cover nVidia and ATi in their designs?
Paranoimia on 10 Oct '11 said:
No, because like them man says, "most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on."
I don't know where people get this idea that more power somehow magically leads to more creativity. More power allows you to do more, perhaps - but that doesn't mean that what's being done with that power is either creative or original. Creativity comes from new ideas and new thinking - no amount of processing power will make up for not having those.
The biggest problem with many games today is not down to any limitations imposed by a particular piece of hardware, but by developers and publishers. They see what sells and they copy it. In cases like Activision/Modern Warfare, they copy it time and again, with no significant improvements or changes. Many of them either don't want or don't like to try anything new.
In terms of visuals, I look at statements about games like Rage and 'texture pop-in', and the resulting "we need new hardware" comments from developers... then I look at games like Uncharted 3 (heck, even Uncharted 2) and I think to myself, "well, if Naughty Dog can make a game look that good, with none of those issues, the hardware clearly isn't the problem." And if the hardware isn't the problem...
TheCrimsonFenix on 10 Oct '11 said:
It's funny you mention dropping a generation down, it seems similar to something I've always thought of with this generation. Imagine if we had a game like San Andreas, running on the consoles of today. Imagine keeping (or improving to some or a lot of extent) the graphics as they were, then using that extra horsepower to build on that original scope the game was made with. Of course bigger isn't always better and more time would be spent making it but in my opinion, it seems a lot of objectives developers had ten years ago have suddenly changed for others. I think the way gaming has been brought out of that geek image it had years ago is partially to blame.
Games to me just seemed like they were built with a lot more focus and attention on what mattered last generation, which was the experience. Nowadays, now that games are more in the mainstream, that same focus, love, and attention has been washed away but not entirely. What was a great experience before, is now a 4 hour average game with celebrity voice overs, socially pleasing multiplayer modes tacked on, and lots and lots of guns and blood. We hear nothing but how shooters are bland and the only creativity is within certain PSN or Arcade titles, but if the developers making those bland titles had a bit more inspiration in what they were making, beyond worrying about review scores and larger sales via "broadening the audience", maybe we'd have some better games. Maybe if developers of those bland games would take a leaf out of certain other well regarded developers books, they'd get a bit of an eye opener. But of course, that would take more time than a years worth of development time, so we don't get it, which saddens me greatly.
Now that people are growing tired of those amazing graphics consoles can reach now (which isn't even the consoles full potential), it's like they're once again (right on time) tempted by the carrot on a stick with promises of what is to come, all because it's "new". In today's world though I'm not really surprised gaming has turned into that, so I don't know why I bother giving my opinion on it, as it's unlikely to change any time soon.
I'm with Carmack in this regard. You can make a fancy looking game all you want but if that's all it is, jog on. I'd rather play my Bioshocks, my Uncharteds, my Batman Akham Asylums, all looking and playing terrifically today no matter what tech they're running on, than get hopes up that somehow new more powerful 16gb RAM, full 1080p, 3D, Anti-aliasing, tesselation and God knows what else, is going to somehow convince a developer to make something fun to play on it. It doesn't matter if it is Dead Space 4 on a ps360-wii 6000 or a PS3. Either way, I'm still going to be walking down corridors shooting monsters.
JAKEevans on 10 Oct '11 said:
Better run away kiddies, the glorious God like PC master gaming race is out for blood.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
You're right that it isn't all about visuals. There are other ways to improve your PC gaming experience, such as TrackIR, high end force feedback steering wheels, a second and/or third monitor (or sixth, if you're wealthy), generic voice command software that can used for virtually any game etc. etc.
Please explain how that is a 'fact'. I don't see it. Sure, some PC games aren't as graphically capable as they would otherwise be, but you're specifically NOT talking about graphics.
Simply put, consoles aren't holding the evolution of anything back, imo. In fact, the current generation of consoles is the first in history to see any serious evolution. The leap from the last gen to this gen was easily the biggest evolution of consoles in history, and with the likes of PS Move & Kinect (whether you like them or not), the current gen consoles are, in a very real way, still evolving. Compare a 360 of today to a 360 on launch day. In terms of what can be done with the machine, they're nearly completely different beasts. My 360 is today a much more versatile machine than it was when I bought it in 2006.
AJDarkstar on 10 Oct '11 said:
My hope is that this means PC graphics cards will be pushed harder before they become outdated. My laptop graphics card is more powerful than a 360 or PS3, but you wouldn't know it by the lack of support. Some games still support it (some even support the ATI 2600HD, which my old Mac had, even though it wasn't great for gaming). I just hope to get some decent life out of my 6970. With 2GB RAM it should last me a while yet, and I mainly chose it for video work, but PC cards get updated and outdated so quickly it's just silly. As for the differences between AMD cards and Nvidia, it's splitting the PC market down the middle in some ways (Battlefield 3 runs better on Nvidia, as does Arkham City due to PhysX support, while a few run better on AMD). The PC market is just too hard to keep up with and console games still look pretty great - especially Forza 4, which could do with some AA, but is super sharp and super smooth.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
@ TheCrimsonFenix: In my opinion, GTA IV is a vastly superior product to San Andreas in virtually every conceivable way. It's a more mature title, with vastly improved shooting mechanics (if you turn that auto aim crap off) and driving mechanics, and a big leap in physics too, and perhaps most importantly, extremely high productions values, especially when it comes to story telling. GTA IV was, in my opinion, the first game that could truly make the convincing case that games are art (sorry Ico and SoTC).
I don't miss the cabbie, parmamedic and truck driving missions one bit. Maybe my memory is hazy, but are these really the things that people who prefer SA want back so much that they trash GTA IV (not suggesting you're trashing it, but it sure seems to be a popular opinion in gaming forums), or are there other major features missing from GTA IV that I've forgotten?
For me, those side missions were never anything more than a brief distraction from the meat of the game. Anyway....
Getting way off topic here.
TheCrimsonFenix on 10 Oct '11 said:
Actually liked GTA IV a lot to be quite honest. Loved the direction it took in terms of realism because I always thought how much better a game like GTA III or San An would feel if there was a more real feel to everything from the life on the streets, to the physics. It was just the lack of activities for you to do which disappointed me. I didn't really bother doing the cabbie or ambulance missions either for anything other than something to get my HP bars up but overall there was just less to do.
With San An, if I'd just completed a mission, I could run off to the gym to hone my running skills for benefiting later missions. I could explore Mount Chiliad and get lost in the woods surrounding it. I could run off and do one of many different types of side mission. I could go off on a graffiti tagging spree. I could customise my CJ. All sorts of things. GTA IV on the other hand didn't have any where near as many things to keep me entertained. I could do a mission, get a call from someone to take them out and have "fun", take them home, then go back to the main story because there was little else to do in the meantime. The world felt vivid and a lot more "real" but I think that's partially what made the world less fun to explore, other than the game world not really being anything much else other than a city. SA's world to me was varied and interesting and new enough to me that even when you knew those bigfoot myths were full of s**t, it didn't stop me wanting to look for them. The atmosphere was already in a way realistic in that regard. Loved IV for the more story focussed game it became but it was just not varied enough for me.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
Although your GPU may out perform a console, the biggest problem here is that PC developers don't spend a great deal of time optimising their code. Why? Because it's difficult, time consuming, and above all else, they don't need to. They know gamers will just upgrade their hardware. The PCs modular nature is both it's greatest strength and it's greatest weakness. I'm sure I'm telling you what you already know.
However, with consoles becoming the focus for many developers (building games from the bottom up rather than the top down, in terms of 'horsepower'), we should see PC gamers needing to upgrade less often, which will please every PC gamer, except for those willing to regularly spend silly money.
Also, with the 360 being so architecturally similar to a PC (it is a PC), I believe that some developers are starting to 'transfer' their optimisation skills from 360 to PC, and we have been able to (thank f**k) hang on to our hardware longer than we used to. You should get another few years out of your 6970 alright.
KesMonkey on 10 Oct '11 said:
@ TheCrimsonFenix: Fair enough. When I found I wanted to do something 'on the side', I'd just make up something to do myself. Grab a parachute, and a helo, and pick a sniping spot. See how long I can survive a 5-star chase. Kill only old ladies, using only a knife (sick bastard!). See how far you can make Nico fly after he ploughs through the windscreen after a sudden stop. See how many times you can flip the car off a ramp etc.
Sure, you could do those things in SA, and I certainly wouldn't object to the return of the stuff you mention, all I'm saying is that I've never really got bored with GTA IV. I always find something to do.
edit: Yeah, I know what you mean about Bigfoot. The possibility that you might discover him always kept me exploring the woods. I hope that R* skip a return to Vice City altogether (fantastic atmosphere, but a really plain landscape) and go straight to San Andreas again.
Headsrinker on 10 Oct '11 said:
KesMonkey
Please explain how that is a 'fact'. I don't see it. Sure, [i]some PC games aren't as graphically capable as they would otherwise be, but you're specifically NOT talking about graphics.
Simply put, consoles aren't holding the evolution of anything back, imo. In fact, the current generation of consoles is the first in history to see any serious evolution. The leap from the last gen to this gen was easily the biggest evolution of consoles in history, and with the likes of PS Move & Kinect (whether you like them or not), the current gen consoles are, in a very real way, still evolving. Compare a 360 of today to a 360 on launch day. In terms of what can be done with the machine, they're nearly completely different beasts. My 360 is today a much more versatile machine than it was when I bought it in 2006.
I agree with what you are saying regarding the consoles continual development. I was speaking in regards to the limitations that go hand in hand with the current gen of consoles. Technology should be embraced in my opinion. Therefore new games should be developed using the very best and latest technology available. Not being limited by what old console technology is capable of. Surely this is how technology truely evolves. It just doesn't make sense to me to have all these technological advances, yet developers limit themselves to producing games that aren't what they could be, given the available technology. As i said previously, i understand financially why it is the case though.
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 10 Oct '11 said:
@kesmonkey
"Simply put, consoles aren't holding the evolution of anything back, imo. In fact, the current generation of consoles is the first in history to see any serious evolution. The leap from the last gen to this gen was easily the biggest evolution of consoles in histroy, and with the likes of PS Move & Kinect (whether you like them or not), the current gen consoles are, in a very real way, still evolving. Compare a 360 of today to a 360 on launch day. In terms of what can be done with the machine, they're nearly completely different beasts. My 360 is today a much more versatile machine than it was when I bought it in 2006."
Really come on serious evolution? Most of the actual gaming functions were first done with the first Xbox. By evolution I take it you mean no longer being games consoles, and sold by the virtue “it only does everything”. Putting services over software what a great evolution that is, games have not improved. I think you missed the point there are hardly any half-life/deus ex/elder scrolls/SystemShock games only Zune players. Genres like FPS having “social” sites attached to them and following the sports game release model. And “apps” that you can get via this wonderful “app” called a web browser. And “party” games using gimmicks via novel controllers, as for having versatility I miss my old 360 dashboard. You know the one that worked fast rather than taking an age to boot up, & do the core functions it should do. That would be the games market place checking friend’s lists and joining games.
lonewolf2002 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Odd how 99.9% of PC games do not suffer like this (and they look a damn sight better,character models aside as they were very good), Rage played pretty fine on my older drivers but at random points (usually in tight/enclosed areas) the framerate would just turn into a slideshow. Out in the big open absolutely no issues what so ever (I thought it would of been the other way round but hey ho). 25 GB PC install for low-res textures maybe the world isnt ready for mega-textures yet or maybe mega-textures are not ready for the world yet. Yeah I can understand some of the issues being driver related but not all. Seems like somebody dropped the ball with the PC version but will not just admit it. Oh and there is to be a Hi-Res texture pack coming to PC but god knows how big it would be seeing as low-res and game took 25GB (a lot of that for mega textures) but that was announced before the game was released (why not have them available now John?). As for no graphics options suppose that's the drivers fault too plus the many many examples of the auto setter failing around the web, does not look good for It's all the drivers fault excuse does it.
liveswired on 10 Oct '11 said:
ID Tech 5 is put to shame by the ancient Unreal 3 engine. As for mega textures - they look worse than 'normal' textures - so what's the point? and if its designed for console then why the hell does it look so bad on console?
b4db0y on 10 Oct '11 said:
Funny how guru3d says otherwise...
http://www.guru3d.com/news/developing-r ... e-mistake/
In an interview to PC Gamer, John Carmack said, "When we started on the game six years ago, I looked at the consoles and said ‘These are as good as the PCs that we're on here’, and our development strategy was set up such that we basically developed live on all the platforms there. And now when we’re looking at PCs that have ten times the horsepower of the consoles... I’m making a large change in my direction, just saying ‘We should be focusing on building things efficiently on the PC and deploying on to consoles.’ And we didn’t make that as crisp of a distinction as we should have."
Carmack further explain how that will change going forward, "My development system now has twenty-four threads and twenty-four gigs of memory, and we can start putting on half a terabyte of solid state drives, and these are the things that are gonna drive the development process on the PC. So, I’m actually as excited about how we’re developing tht titles in this coming generation as the graphics enhancements and things that I’m gonna make."
JBoo on 10 Oct '11 said:
i got the ps3 version & it plays fine.
fyro11 on 10 Oct '11 said:
So you must be done with that now? Good. Just don't bother telling us again, thanks.
DoomGuy84 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Oooh! Looks like ive touched a few nerves today with my controversial comments! Please, dont let me stop you guys from updating your graphics card or RAM or something
The_KFD_Case on 10 Oct '11 said:
QFT
MisterBedo on 10 Oct '11 said:
My penis is better than your vagina because it allows me to pee standing up.
My vagina is better than your penis because when I get kicked in it, it doesn't disable me for a week.
My dad is tougher than your dad.
Nintendo are better than Sega.*
etc etc
*that last one's actually true
shaunwilmer on 10 Oct '11 said:
I upgraded recently to a GT570GTX, more for Batman than anything but I'm been playing Crysis 2 in 1080p in HD directx 11 mode and it is spectacular, runs reasonably smooth with crazy visuals. Very enjoyable.
Rage is just a complete mess on the graphics front. Not a good outlook for the ID tech 5 engine, people will use Cryengine3 instead.
As for Rage, I've played 10hrs over the weekend and gameplay isn't all that bad. But it reminds me of a playable Nukem Forever. Way too linear. Wish the missions worked more like Fallout 3 and Vagas with multiple plot lines. Trust me I don't mind crappy graphics with good gameplay. I played steam half-life through not that long ago and enjoyed every minute !
I think ID are stuck in the past, regardless of graphical quality. Fallout showed up how games should be scripted with loads of options and the ability to replay the game in lots of different ways.
The player characters aren't much better than Quake4. They aren't even better than Half-life 2 !
Metatasian on 10 Oct '11 said:
What a twunk! I'm so glad I never bought this.
Welsh Jester on 10 Oct '11 said:
Screw ID anyway, they were great before.
Valve is the best now, at least they know how to make quality titles and put PC first for FPS as it should be!
i have little hope for doom 4, keep screwing things up ID.. dumb asses
KrisVr on 10 Oct '11 said:
I see you didn't choose nothing, this game is cluster f*** on all platforms.
Also, PC don't need to be lead platform to deliver a great experience. Some game devs just care about their customers and make specific tweaks on each platform and usually its enough to deliver great experience on all platforms.
I considered to buy it on PS3, but no, no, no, u my friend won't even see my money. U aren't event trying to care about your customers.
Madbrit2K5 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Complete and utter joke... a complete two fingers to the PC community!!
No wonder people hack and download PC games when genuine customers are f**ked over for a half finished game!
PC users should be entitled to a full refund or partial refund until the game actually works!!
liquidphantom on 11 Oct '11 said:
Carmack = JP from Grandmas Boy? What a c**t!
47CFC on 11 Oct '11 said:
Why can't everyone just get the **** along??!!! Console games are what sell the most, why would id focus on optimizing the PC version of this game when they could easily earn more $$$$ by focusing on it's console counterparts. C'mon people, why wont you just accept the cold hard fact that console games are what sell. All this is coming from a PC gamer.
p.s FPSes have been and always will be better on PC's, it's a fact. PERIOD
BOYD1981 on 11 Oct '11 said:
PC gaming is not dying, it's been left to stagnate and not given a chance to evolve and the fact that a vast majority of console owners are quite happy to put up with p**s poor coding and broken games because they paid less for their console and they get ease of use, or at the end of the day will just trade their games in.
I suspect that the problems with RAGE are more to do with id being acquired by Bethesda, a greedy publisher who want as much money as quickly as possible therefore not allowing the team to focus primarily on the PC version with console ports coming later
And this notion that gaming rigs costs £1000 is outdated, you can get a decent PC that will run anything you throw at it quite comfortably for the next few years for around the same price as a next-gen console at release and there are big saving to be made on PC versions of games.
I'm not against console gaming nor do I believe that is worse than PC gaming, I am however against idiots that claim to be gamers dismissing another platform because they know nothing about it and are in fact at the end of the day just fan boys.
Madbrit2K5 on 11 Oct '11 said:
Why do people keep going on about consoles, they sell more games....so it's just going to happen??
Ur NO....I'm still paying £30 odd quid, I'm a customer....I should get a complete / working game!!
There are no excuses for this......look at BF3 Beta.....look at the graphics options ID!!!!
Vsync for f**k sake!
divinebeetle on 11 Oct '11 said:
Not controversial just wrong
mideonphish on 11 Oct '11 said:
I must admit that as someone who uses both a Sony PS3 and a PC for gaming (used to have the old style Xbox 360 too but it RRODed), I find his comments more than a little disconcerting, it sounds like he just cant be really bothered with PC any more and that doesn't sit well with me.
Warrior24_7 on 11 Oct '11 said:
Carmack is telling the truth! Him saying this is nothing new either, Crytek, Infinity Ward, Epic, and AMD have all said negative things about the PC as a gaming platform. The truth is... it sucks! If it were a console it would've died long ago. Many good games don't even see the light of day on the PC or come so late that they're not even worth playing. Piracy and viruses run rampant on the system. It's over priced and overrated, PC gamers must spend hundreds to thousands of dollars just to play the same $50 console game that plays just as well if not better on a $199 console machine! PC games are full of bugs and glitches at launch, and often require many patches months after release just to play the way it was suppose to at launch! The control scheme is inferior to the console controller as many games are unsuited to be played with a kb/m. It's just simple point-n-click gameplay and you can literally play many PC games with 1 finger! You also must deal with the thousands of hacker, cheaters, thieves, modders, botters, and all other types of game and fun spoiling idiots that haunt the multi-player PC world. There are so many more things wrong with PC gaming than are right with it and thats why it has devs angry and frustrated. They've fled the platform in favor of the console for a much better work and profit enviroment. The PC is a cluster f*k of mammoth proportions and this won't change anytime soon.
InsertMoreCredit on 11 Oct '11 said:
There's so much wrong with this post it's bordering on being unfunny. The fact that you're blissfully unaware that console controllers - like the 360 pad - can be used with a PC and that console games are continually patched months after release let alone all the other garbage you've spewed says it all
Again, another dimwitted, console retard having absolutely no idea about gaming on PC.
TheCrimsonFenix on 11 Oct '11 said:
Once again it seems people put blame for something on a piece of electronic equipment, rather than blaming the person designing on that piece of electronic equipment.
Consoles better than PC!! IT TOO EXPENSIVE!! WAH WAH! - No, it's not.
PC is better cos we can mod and we can have working games!! - Well done, be creative, be imaginative.. but, if you're modding to fix problems with the game, well done for doing the work that the developer should have done in the first place.
PC SUX cos it has DRM!! - Good luck with online passes and expensive dlc.
CONSOLES SUCK COS THERE NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DISPLAY A LEAF IN 1080P! - But they're good enough to power basically the same game deep down: Gameplay = Important. Graphics = Just a bonus.
PC sux cos i cant control the game with 300 keys! - Usually said by someone who has given very little time to try it or just none at all. Oh wait, I can plug a controller in.
Consoles suck cos you have to install and patch every time!! - Much like you usually have to do with a PC game.
-f**king yawn-
PC elitists to the left of us, fanboys to the right, here we are..
ladycroft142 on 11 Oct '11 said:
You can't blame the guy for supporting the market that currently has more potential sales wise. I've got Rage for the PS3, the texture pop-in is a bit annoying but otherwise it's a stunning game.
InsertMoreCredit on 11 Oct '11 said:
And you're the dickhead stuck in the middle?
Yep, guess so.
TheCrimsonFenix on 11 Oct '11 said:
Looking at how you react to people on here, mostly getting things entirely wrong whilst insulting them, I wouldn't expect a decent comment from you. But hey, I'd rather be the dickhead in the middle, than the person stroking their hard drive or the ignorant tit with a Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo fetish that is borderline disturbing.
Go stroke your e-penis some place else, you confrontational little tit. Your predictable internet nature is obvious and unsurprising. I'm surprised you haven't been banned with your abusive 12 year old like attitude getting the better of you on here. Now feel free to reply with yet more predictable playground like insults, if that makes you feel better about yourself.
Warrior24_7 on 11 Oct '11 said:
I totally get PC gaming, it's not worth the money, time, or any serious investment thrown at it and thats the truth! Thats why NOBODY is stupid enough to do it anymore! Carmack makes PC games, he along with many other "former" PC only devs like Crytek, Infinity Ward, Epic and others have said the same thing and have abandoned the platform in favor of the much more games worthy console. AMD said that it takes a PC much more horse power to do the same thing a console can! I have "built" 2 gaming PCs, one with a Q6600 and "2" 9800 GX2s the other with a Core i7 950 and "2" 3GB 580s and the return on that investment has been zilch, nothing, nada, zeeeerrrroooo!!! It's not even cost effective to do that! All of that money down the drain to play nothing more than "console games" on a overrated and over priced platform with point-n-click gameplay. So don't give me that "you can use a console controller" BS. If you're gonna play "console ports" with a "console controller" than save your money and buy a console and get a MUCH better gaming experience. PC games are full of bugs and multi-player is full of hacks and cheats at every turn. There is no reason to play the same damn games and pay $1500 or more to do it. Many PC gamers realized this and purchased consoles. Only an ignorant PC fantard who plays "console ports" with a "console controller" on an over priced machine would believe he is getting a deal!
Right now there isn't $h!t on the PC thats worth a damn or even a second look. The hype train derailed long ago on this HUGE, HOT, HEAVY, HUNGRY, MONSTROSITY that is a gaming PC.
DiBBs on 12 Oct '11 said:
Carmack takes every chance he gets to blame his failures on products.
Has he ever stopped to think that his game is the one thats freaking atrocious.
He should have shut up and sat down after doom.
Hes like an angsty 13 year old trying to blame his shortcomings on everyone else.
Warrior24_7 on 12 Oct '11 said:
That would be true if he didn't find success elsewhere. What about Epic, Crytek, and infinity Ward who have all said similar things about the same product and found tremendous success on a different product? Exactly!!
radiocat on 12 Oct '11 said:
Don't buy PC games at launch. They almost never work properly out of the box. From what I've seen from recent releases, it takes weeks or even months for them to be patched enough to get a decent playing experience... by which time you'll have already finished the game if you bought it launch. What's the point in that?
If you want to buy games at launch, buy them for XBox or PS3. Otherwise you're better off waiting for the prices to go down, by which time you'll be sure of a relatively bug-free experience.
nolim on 12 Oct '11 said:
At least Id didn't wait a month before releasing a patch that gives us the graphics options we wanted, and note i said wanted because all of these settings (and more) could be changed in a rageconfig file anyway so they wern't really needed.
I really can't understand the whingefest that seems to be happening on these pages, if you're not used to teeking config files and updating graphics drivers then perhaps you'd be better off sticking with consoles to play your games. And as for the console whingers, seriously, this game looks better than almost anything this generation and plays at twice the frame rate, get a grip!
Rage is a fantastic game offering a great shooter with suprisingly fun driving and RPG elements added for good measure, no, it's not fallout, it's an fps made with id's eye for fun before realism and has easily taken it's spot amoung my top 5 games of this generation.
Warrior24_7 on 12 Oct '11 said:
Didn't Carmack criticize his own game? Wasn't it Carmack who said 'Rage PC launch was a cluster f*** - this isn't the leading platform for games', consoles are the primary focus?
He "did" say PC, so that means he must be satisfied with the console version of the game at least. So why question what people are saying here? The PC gaming market is the only market I know of that you buy something broken and it's up to the consumer to fix it. You can't get your mooney back either. Quality control on the system is laughably bad.
TallPaul1878 on 12 Oct '11 said:
Seriously it's time for us gamers of all codes to boycott shoddy games. Don't jump in for launch day purchases. Give them a week or two. If the game launches broken then don't buy it all. It's about time these companies, who make millions by the way, actually bothered to release a game that is fit for purpose.
PC gamers have bundles of great games designed for their platform alone. I say stick to those just as I, as a PS3 owner, stick mostly to my consoles exclusives. I'm sick to my back teeth of buying games that just don't work. So far there have been New Vegas, Black Ops, RDR to name but a few; that have launched broken or inferior on my machine.
The only multi plats I've bought this year are FIFA and Battlefield 3 on pre-order. If Battlefield stinks on PS3 then I'll just not buy a multi plat at all. Thank God for Uncharted 3 I guess.
evilhippo on 12 Oct '11 said:
ID is very much yesterday's company. There will be PC games long after people have forgotten who Carmack was
Prince PS3 on 13 Oct '11 said:
TBH, I often think of the pc as a car with a huge engine which has unfortunately been inadequately tuned...
For years Crysis was the one defence that could be called upon. However, nowadays there isn‘t much I‘ve seen that looks a whole lot better than Killzone 3 if we put aside the ridiculous resolutions the pc can achieve when running through a monitor.
Unfortunately, it seems that most people would rather save a grand and just play through their telly in the comfort of their living room at a slightly lower resolution but with comparable graphics.
InsertMoreCredit on 13 Oct '11 said:
Aww, poor baby. Looks like you're quite happy to dish it out but can't take it.
There, there, never mind.
TheCrimsonFenix on 13 Oct '11 said:
And there it is, that predictable nature I was talking about, wrapped in a hypocritical attitude.
Come on now, you forgot to use the
emote, NO WAIT! the 
emote to try and instil a sense of disinterest. Maybe go back to the swear words and maybe a comment based on a wildly exaggerated idea that I'm in some way less intelligent than you! Perhaps a retort that tries to pass this off as something that isn't worth your time, come on, you can do better!
Yellow6 on 16 Oct '11 said:
Translation:
I produced a pile of garbage and stole your money.
I am now insulting you in the hope that people will start arguing (fanboy style) about what is the better platform and ignore the fact we produce sub-standard products.
I have a PC and a console.
I was looking forward to this game.
I'm not even going to try it now on either platform, not based on friends comments, review scores or fanboy loyalty.
I will not be buying this because the man behind it admitted it is crap and he just cares about the money.
If you are a console owner laughing at the PC community right now, do you trust this guy?
Why not just say it's not his focus and then not work in that area.
To put out a crap product is not excusable.
If he thinks console is better than PC now, good luck to him.
To think console is better than PC but still steal the PC money for a crap product is tantamount to theft in my book.
It makes me worry about buying it on his preferred format, once he has the cash from the "larger audience" he will not care.
This is not a sad day for PC gaming.
This is a black day for gaming on all platforms
Superabound on 16 Oct '11 said:
Well i guess Carmack finally found the secret to preventing piracy: make a 20+ gig piece of crap that isnt worth downloading or playing. What a genius.
Superabound on 16 Oct '11 said:
Except that everyone already has a PC, for other things like work, school, email, facebook, etc. On the other hand, to play console games, id have to go out and spend multiple hundreds of dollars on a machine that can ONLY play video games. A PC is much more of a bargain. Remember that when the PS3 first came out, it was like $600, which is only $200 less than i paid for my current PC which is 10 times more powerful and can run pretty much any game on the market at max settings with no problem.
pRM8 on 16 Oct '11 said:
Why has this thread turned into another Console vs PC slagfest? When we all should be turning our attention back to the "so called" developer Carmack (and his team) and the shoddy workmanship of his latest release. Lets not forget that Rage has problems on all systems not just the PC.
Gamers should stand united and not have to accept broken, unplayable games released by developers who really should have the knowledge and experience to deliver polished, fully playable games for us to enjoy.
Warrior24_7 on 17 Oct '11 said:
This is a sad day for PC gaming among many sad days, and it's a sad day everytime this happen. By why hold anything against Carmack without feeling the same way about Crytek, Epic, Infinity Ward, Ubisoft and others who have made similar comments and have all launched bug infested $h!tty products on the system! If you're gonna throw hate somebody's way then there is plenty to go around.
Warrior24_7 on 17 Oct '11 said:
The PC is no bargin, in fact it's an overrated, over priced, bug infested, money pit!! The PS3 and 360 were released 5-6 years ago!! What PC were you using then? Do you even remember what CPUs, GPUs, RAM ect was out then? I do, and I can guarantee that you've updated multiple times or flat out replaced the thing at a price point 3 times that or more of a console!
If you're unable to play ALL games at their max settings now on an $800+ PC, I KNOW that you couldn't play today's games at their max settings or even at all on a 5-6 year old one! Not only that, you spent $800 on your "current" PC and a 360 is $199! You can get a 360 AND a PS3 with games for both and still have money left over. Btw, you're playing the same damn games, except yours are broken!!! 
Both consoles have their own services and are fully online, so surfing the web is no big deal. As a matter of fact, you can do all of that on your phone!! Console games have some value as well. You can buy used, rent, trade-in, or even get money back for console games, PC games aren't worth a damn once you crack that box open. The 'myth" of PC gaming has been exploded long ago.
gmcb007 on 17 Oct '11 said:
Oh for f**k sakes, this IS NOT a PC V Console thread. If you want to go on about that then go and start a new thread on it in the gaming forums.
Yellow6 on 17 Oct '11 said:
This was an interview with Carmack.
I am commenting on Carmack's comments.
This is the comments section of the Carmack interview.
Carmack himself said half his customers on PC bought something that does not work.
I am not singling Carmack out.
I have criticised other "houses" in articles about them.
Re-read my words and you will see the following:
That was sincere.
I am happy for him to chase a larger audience.
I am not happy for him to rip off any consumer with products that don't work, he said it!
Not exactly "throwing hate" to say that I want a game that works.
Not exactly "hate" to say he put out a shoddy product when he just said that himself.
I do not hate him.
I am disappointed.
Yellow6 on 17 Oct '11 said:
Warrior24_7 on 17 Oct '11 said:
Wait a minute, you highlight Carmack's name and emphasize that you're only talking about Carmack's comments in the comments section of the Carmack interview. Then emphasize that Carmack himself said that half of his customers bought something that does not work, yet you're not singling out Carmack? Riiiiiiiight, so how could this be a black day for all of gaming then? Well maybe you should re-read MY words? This IS a sad day for PC gaming among many sad days, since this IS NOT a black day for gaming on all platforms because that is not what Carmack was talking about. Carmack was ONLY talking about the PC version of the game when he said that the Rage PC launch was a cluster f**k and "We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games". The problem is with the PC
.
Yellow6 on 19 Oct '11 said:
Seriously?
I put his name in bold in my direct response to you, in the hope you would get the point of why I am talking about Carmack.
I can understand if you like Rage.
I can understand if you like Carmack.
I don't get why you think we should not be talking about Carmack in this article?
In an article entitled "Carmack: 'Rage PC launch was a cluster f***' what exactly do you think I should be talking about?
The situation in Somalia?
Greek national debt?
Or, possibly, Carmack?
If this article was about 5 companies doing the same thing and I only commented on Carmack then I would be singling him out.
It does not do that.
The article is about Rage and an interview with Carmack.
Can you seriously not understand that?
Carmack said this himself, I did not make that up, he said it himself in the interview!
I also stand by both my points:
He is entitled to chase the larger audience (good luck).
He should not take the money if he cannot provide a working product/service (shame on him).
And yes it is bad for ALL of gaming when a major player starts putting out shoddy work.
If they do it on PC today, why not Xbox tomorrow, or PS3?
Can I also point you back to my very first comment
Translation:
I produced a pile of garbage and stole your money.
I am now insulting you in the hope that people will start arguing (fanboy style) about what is the better platform and ignore the fact we produce sub-standard products.
All I can say is well done warrrior, you have done exactly what he wanted, ignored the cluster f*** and argued like a fanboy.