“We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games,” he explained. “That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 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.”
Honestly I think John is just frustrated that he hasn't been able to make a good PC game since Quake 3. It seems like he's decided to denounce PCs more or less just to avoid accepting his failure in a market that he helped to create, which is sad for both John and the PC gamers.
I totally agree that consoles are becoming more and more flexible, and the sheer numbers in sales that you get with certain games on a console release compared to a PC release can be daunting. Let's keep in mind though that it's really a marketing / genre specific phenomenon. Games like Gears of War and Halo, Fable, Street Fighter (more on Capcom's success with a PC port later), etc. are clearly designed with the console in mind. Console gamers recognize this, and eat the games up accordingly.
I don't think that this is any kind of indicator that "consoles are the premier system", though. I think they're the premier system for certain audiences and certain genres, but why wouldn't they be? Third person action/adventure games are always going to sell better on a console, they just work better. As are fighting games, racing games, sports games, etc. I don't think it's rational to say that "the PC market is dead" or even that it's "not profitable". I find both of those statements to be pretty ridiculous.
Diablo 3 is going to sell like crazy, so is Skyrim. Both of those games are planned for a console release (Diablo still being in the works), but I guarantee you that the PC sales will FAR outshine the console sales. Why? It's simple, and I'm sure everyone already knows what I'm going to say-- well, everyone but John Carmack, apparently. They're PC games! They have a rich history on the PC and they are CLEARLY intended to be played on the PC, it's observable in every part of their design that they were meant for it. The same can be said for PC classics like Counter Strike, which never did well on console despite numerous attempts to integrate it into that market. I could go on, but I won't.
So this is my point: it all depends on what
kind of game you're making and
who you are making it for. That will determine how the PC or Console crowd embraces the product. Neither camp will have the wool pulled over their eyes with an obviously terrible port from console to PC, or PC to console.
Look at Crysis 2, what a shame. Crysis 1 was an inherently PC title by design, it showed in every aspect of it and PC gamers loved it. Console gamers heard it was great, but didn't really get a taste. Then, the developers focused primarily on the console for Crysis 2... what happened? PC gamers felt alienated because it was obvious from the control schemes and level design that this was meant to be a more linear, less free, console-friendly title. Console gamers felt alienated because it wasn't really a full on console title and there were still remnants of PC features that they don't generally like (difficulty level, for starters? zing!). So in the end, no one wins.
You can't make a game half for one audience and half for another, especially not when it's a genre like FPS. First Person Shooters were born on the PC, and though they have seen success on consoles after the breakthrough that was Goldeneye 64, they
feel completely different and they don't work as a quick swap between console/PC. They need to be developed, marketed, and aimed at EITHER market, not both, otherwise you'll fail in both camps anyway.
And let's not forget PC giants Valve and Blizzard, who have been making ridiculously successful PC-only titles that rake in LOADS of cash since, well, forever. Half Life 2, Portal, Portal 2, Team Fortress 2, Star Craft 2, World of fucking Warcraft, etc. etc. etc. These games are HUGE sources of cash and show that there is an absolutely gargantuan market on the PC
if you make the right kind of game.
So with that said, it's understandable that John would want to aim at the console market right now. He's been failing in the PC market for the better part of the last decade anyway, so why not switch it up? I'm fine with that, but don't blame the entire PC gaming community for your poor designs that don't generate sales.
--
Afterword:
The only recent success story exception that comes to mind is Capcom's recent porting of Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition to the PC. It's seen great sales (though not comparable to the console sales, which is expected with a fighting game), and they managed to port the game while still making it feel EXACTLY the same on PC as it does on a console, provided you have a controller/stick for your PC (both the Xbox and PS3 console controllers / sticks work on PC, so there you go).
So Capcom seems to be the exception to the rule here, mostly because they made the game feel the same on both systems (partially because you get to use the same controller on both systems). So good job, Capcom. I hope other developers figure out how to make ports and where to put their focus.
