Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why some games are released in console first and later in pc?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RapidTurtle said:

Are console makers  paying game devs for selling consoles?

Yes, it's all about money

So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RapidTurtle said:

Are console makers  paying game devs for selling consoles?

It's because console players are PC's beta testers



Some are.

But mostly it's about them getting extra time to work on the PC release, because console development is prioritized. That's because it typically seems to make more money (in the short term)

I apologize for the way I am. If my post seemed rude, that was not my intention. Just my ineptness in forming a nice coherent message.

"Why do we suffer a lifetime for a moment of happiness?" - Anonymous

"FuryBSD, name of your sex tape" - Alex Clark

"How long do I have to keep going on? Someone end it already"

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RapidTurtle said:

Are console makers  paying game devs for selling consoles?

Yes. It's quite the amount of money. I believe I heard that Microsoft paid Square Enix like 50 miliion US dollars! for them to release Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusively for the Xbox. Could be true could be not but I believe it tbh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RapidTurtle said:

Are console makers  paying game devs for selling consoles?

Yes, but also sometimes they want people to buy it right away and then re-buy the superior pc version later like Rockstar has been doing.

...is there a question here? 🤔

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:


Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.


-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]


A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.


-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]


From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.


-OnePlus X - [7/10]


A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.


-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]


Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.


-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]


Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.


-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]


A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The Developers get a bonus if they release it on a specific system first.

They do that in order to drive up sales for their consoles and hope that many buy the game twice

My Gaming PC:
Asus Strix RTX 2080 2150MHz core, 8000MHz memory
i7 8700k @4.95GHz delid + a fuckton of voltage (1.36V LLC6, yeah its a below average OCer) - NZXT x72
G.Skill Trident Z @3450MHz 32GB CL15 (3466 and 3200 mixed CL16) OC
Asus Maximus X Hero
Samsung 840 PRO 128GB (Windows)
Samsung 860 EVO 1TB (Games)
Samsung 860 EVO 500GB (Stuff)
Seagate Expension Desk 4TB (Shadowplay and Backups)
Corsair RM-850X

Lian Li O11Dynamic
ROG SWIFT PG258Q  240hz

Razer Viper Ultimate / Endgame Gear XM1 / Logitech G Pro Wireless (Corepad Skatez) 
Ducky One 2 TKL RGB MX Blue/Silver (One 2 Mecha Mini soon?)


My Silent Multimedia PC:

Ryzen 2700 @4GHz 1.337V - Noctua NH-D15

Powecolor RX 5700 XT Red Devil 2030MHz Core, 935MHz Memory, undervolt

G.Skill Aegis 3200MHz (3000 kit)

MSI B450 Pro Carbon

Kingston A400 240GB (Windows) + 480GB (Games)

Corsair RM-650

Be Quiet Silent Base 601 with 1x 140mm Noctua exhaust from my D15

Samsung Q60R (4k 60hz for Windows, 1440p 120hz Freesync for gaming)

Logitech G Pro Wireless

Ducky One 2 Mini MX RED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consoles have a fixed configuration, there's just one video card, one processor, all consoles have same amount of ram, same hard drive or ssd, there's minimal program running in background to steal resources from the game.


The game maker can design the game with fewer quality settings and fewer options because it knows the level of performance of the components in the console , so it's less work ... they can also optimize everything so that the game runs well


The console makers subsidize the game studio, basically they give them advance payments and often they pay for exclusivity (for ever or for a limited time). This brings gamers to the console and Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo etc can make more money through selling other games or selling services (game passes, movies etc)

Once the developers get the game out on console and they get more money from the first few months of sale (as the piracy is less on consoles) they can spend time making or tweaking quality settings to get the game running well on a variety of processors and video cards and maybe make the game even better looking on high end video cards.


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RapidTurtle said:

Are console makers  paying game devs for selling consoles?

Several consoles have been sold at a loss. Games are how they turn a profit. But aside from that, up until the last generation, porting games to or from PC wasn't a simple matter. I mean it still takes work, but now everything except the Switch is using x86 architecture, and that makes things easier.

Make sure to quote or tag me (@JoostinOnline) or I won't see your response!

PSU Tier List  |  The Real Reason Delidding Improves Temperatures"2K" does not mean 2560×1440 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now