I have two ways of seeing this:

1. There is the human aspect. Crap games can come out first on PC, and still be ported as rubbish to console. The same goes for a game coming from console to PC. PS4 is heavily based on FreeBSD, and PC users are primarily Windows users. This alone dictates a complication in working with various platforms. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Developers like ID Software are good because they focus on each platform's strength, and customise each platform's game as it needs to be. Wolfenstein: The New Order never ran at full 1920x1080 on Xbox One, but it did do 1080p and 60fps. Dark Souls turned out to be crappy on initial release for PC (better framerate / resolution / customisable controls), but thanks to modders became a way better game later on.

2. This by definition makes it more attractive to a niche crowd who are willing to outlay their money for greater fidelity and control over what they do. Not everyone wants it / needs that. Tinkering is the real strength of a PC-focused game as well. Modders can add all sorts of content, and that's wonderful. Richard Burns Rally continues to thrive years later thanks to the game's modding community. That means flexibility for players who want it. As a person who does not own a gaming PC I can only hope to mod a game like Mass Effect 3, which got better with its hardcore mods. I accept this limitation because of my priorities.

3. The cost that this flexibility comes with is the potential loss of stability. Homologated hardware is easier to bug fix and make stable, at the cost of free content and modification. I see the two as different ends of the spectrum. Traditionally open systems are easier to break, fix and modify but closed systems have tighter patch management cycles. The unmanaged vs managed approach can have different advantages and drawbacks. It's like debating open vs. closed source, you're going to fall into a loop.

4. Would Naughty Dog develop for PC first? No. This is because they've been making games for Playstation since the word go and will most likely do so till the end. They gain focus on a single platform, and easier development cycle compared to multiplatform dev houses.

Are visuals everything? No. There's user choice, management, maintenance, development - all things that have to be taken into account before saying focusing on one is good for all. People make games. The way I see it, we choose a platform, game on it and move on.

why wouldn't you use the pc as your main platform and then tailor the game to the consoles strengths from there? if your making a film would it not make sense to film in the highest resolution and then format it for blu-ray and dvd?

having the best possible source to work from is ideal. people on the pc can have a game that exceeds 1080p and 60 frames per second, not many games on consoles are 1080p and run at 60 frames per second and none go beyond that. the pc also has other graphical features like tesselation and better anti-aliasing that can be added that result in performance impact. that's the beauty of the pc, there is a higher headroom to work with and consumers can adopt performance based on how much they invest. with a console your simply stuck with what the hardware allows, therefore pc gamers are left out of better performance if it's just a lazy port.

You're clearly oblivious to the fact most PC gamers also own consoles, but still want the best possible version of games. Your comment sounds bitter and childish, oh the irony.

Yeah yeah yeah. I really don't care. Just lol.

I'm a new PC gamer, but I bought the PS4 at launch, I have to say having both is the way to go. I love PS exclusives, but the price of games well exceeds that of PC. There are positives to both, but developers should go for the highest common denominator, or in other words if the sky is the limit, they should be aiming for the moon. It will be the easiest to port with x86 architecture, and that's something that sells PC games: good ports.

If you dismiss one platform as inferior, no matter what platform it is (that goes for all you fanboys) you're just childish and ignorant to the fact that they're all games.

P.S. Troll, enjoy those bubbles while they last. :)

That's what I meant, I think we on the same page.

The console dev's are throwing more money at gaming dev's.
PC being the most 'progressive' of the platforms is therefor suffering as its maximum potential is not being catered for. Instead the restricted potential of the console if being focused on.

This means that gaming overall may be suffering a loss because the cash is not being thrown at pushing boundaries to their furthest extent.

@HoldenZA

Such a tiny percentage of people have PCs that could push "boundaries to their furthest extent". If dev's focused on high end PCs only we wouldn't have a game industry.

Creativity is not quashed by consoles either just look at games like Locoroco, Little Big Planet, Tearaway, Unfinished Swan, Ni no Kuni, The Tomorrow Children.........etc.
Console makers are great supporters of indie dev’s giving their games exposure and funding.

Saying consoles "slows down breakthrough game development" is wrong great ideas innovations and breakthroughs game development can happen on any platform.

The exact same or possibly more because a series S, initial investment and effort to Port to Xbox consoles for a third of the return.

Simply not worth it

“ Simply not worth it”

And yet, basically every game comes to Xbox.

A third is a pretty big number to be honest. Like would you rather make 15 million or 20 million? That's the difference that a third makes.