Lol, so you waste so many words discussing money, completely fail to address the point I made and then attempt to take some kind of high ground?
Good luck with that, but you still haven't refuted anything I've actually said.. You've refuted plenty of things I never said though so bravo ;)
the point you made was also invalidated by your own words when you discussed "good developers staying good" in relation to great console games that were never leadplatformed for the PC.....but wait.....even if a game was born on consoles it would benefit from PC developement because pc can throw more power at it.........well that would be great if what made a game great was ONLY technical achievement which is obviously not
Why are you focusing on technical achievement when that is only a portion of PC-lead games? Generally PC games also make use of more features as I have already mentioned. For example, the console version of BF3 will now bet getting a server browser, something which few console games have had in recent years.
The reason I said 'good developers staying good' is because all developers started with PC games, as development is done on PCs, and early work for a developer is obviously not going to be on a console game, which is more expensive to distribute. whether the company itself has ever made a PC game is irrelevant considering that it is the developers doing the work.
you do not need a PC lead platformed game in order for the game to be great, you never will unless in order to be "great" you need pure "technical achievement" or "hardware pushing" features
In a sense this is true, but whether or not a game NEEDS to be PC-lead is irrelevant when the developers are perfectly able to add these features and depth to console games, but choose not to. When a game is PC-lead the developers are under pressure to provide as close to the PC experience on consoles as is possible, which results in the console players getting these things, which are typical for PC games.
YOU are also the one who said there is more money in PC developement , just throwing it there.
And overall there is, but this is still irrelevant to the point I've been making throughout.
There will come a time, likely not in the next generation, in which "resource budget" will not be an issue anymore when it comes to graphical fidelity and other features. At that point this discussion will be utterly moot
In what way will the point be moot? If you want to talk purely about resources, the consoles will never again be on par with PCs in processing power; therefore console-lead games will always be made to the lesser hardware specifications and always underperform on PCs.
On the actual gameplay front, a game which focuses on console development will always be more 'casual' because that is what the majority of the audience are.
again, you have proven at length you are one of the "enlighted pc master race" crowd.....you are not worth arguing with, you never will be
Lol you always try to finish on comments like this as if it's going to have some profound effect of making you somehow win the argument. You're still yet to refute my claim, and do everything you can to shift the discussion.
Address the point. Perhaps I should phrase it differently; Can you say definitively any way in which a PC-lead game is NOT better for console gamers?