I think game companies can optimize for high-end PCs for the same reason that car companies can make high-end models: you don't get a reputation for being a kick-ass game for running ok on ok hardware, you get that by being kick-ass on hardware that most people wouldn't even dream of buying because the people that write reviews do run on such systems.
Actually, I think you get a reputation for being a kick-ass game by having awesome gameplay and (when appropriate) a good story. Sure, looking pretty is nice, but I don't think graphics matter quite as much as the gaming industry thinks.
>I think game companies can optimize for high-end PCs for the same reason that car companies can make high-end models
Will be interesting to see how Battlefield 3 sells compared to Black Ops. CoD has looked good at times but has never blown me away graphically. However it mints money from the general market. Battlefield and the Frostbite engine look several years ahead of the CoD engine. What will the sales look like?
>High-end PC GPUs are ten times better than console GPUs, so why don't PC games look ten times better?
Curious, would love to hear Valves thoughts on this too. Several Source based are critically considered the best of the best, but again the graphics have only looked good at times yet Valve is printing money.
Except the problem with that mentality is that you now have to start charging more (as car companies do for their high-end models). How much money could Id Software or Epic games make for a title that requires a $2000 PC to play? How many copies could they sell? Would the support nightmare be worth it? Think Ferrari/Porsche money compared to Honda/Toyota money. What do you "drive"?
That being said - I would like to see someone try this, and I would probably buy said game (unless it was another stupid CoD clone).
