i never saw this coming !!!

o but wait!!! i did see it coming...

guess which games are soon to comin in the next years... they start with a G, and an H, and an M.

Harsh but true.

Nice, Fable 2 on my highend pc sweet

i dont wanna flame seriously i got all consoles, but the justification for my 360 is growing thin with microsofts multiplat decisions

only reason for me now is gears2 wich will come to pc soon too

This one of the reasons why I own a PC and PS3 for gaming.

Been saying this for months. Gears 2 will be announces soon or at E3 as well....

considering microsoft OWNS lionhead i am quite surprised. They must have felt they stood to gain more by releasing on PC

so now all of a sudden the console fanboys have highend pc's?

Where were you guys when Kz2 was being compared to crysis and the "PC cost too much QQ" argument was running rampant.

@Evrfighter

I was there. I played the Crysis demo on my PC... I didn't care for it all that much. An amazing achievement of a game. just not my cup of tea.

Now as far as Fable 2 goes... I doubt it will need a 'Super high end PC that is capable of running Crysis on high settings' like mine. i think a game that can play WoW on decent setting can probably handle fable 2... It's not a "Graphics powerhouse" like KZ2 and Crysis...

2 Read my other posts and my blog. A high end PC is not that bad. Really it's not pending you have a PC from that last 3 years and a decent monitor you can get a mother board, Graphics card, Ram, processor and Vista for the price of a 360... Not a low end one but mid of the line one. Like 350-400

Edit: Most games on 360 aren't that intense... They couldn't even keep Left 4 Dead up to par with the PC version and I bet 90% of people on this site culd run left for dead on low settings. It's really not that demanding.

* OS: Windows Vista, XP or 2000
* CPU: 3.0 GHz P4, Dual Core 2.0 or AMD64X2 (or higher)
* RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2GB for Vista
* Disc drive: DVD-ROM Drive
* Hard drive: At least 7.5 GB of free space
* Video: Direct X 9 compatible video card (Video card must be 256 MB or more and should be a DirectX 9-compatible with support for pixel shader 2.0)
* Sound: Direct X9.0c compatible sound card

Really thats not asking much and if thats the case then I feel the same amount of peeps would be able to play Fable 2 on their PC's... REally comparing Fable 2's graphics to KZ2's and Crysis... Not even close man.

"i think a game that can play WoW on decent setting can probably handle fable 2"

Sadly this isnt te case, fable 2 uses very demanding FX effects, procedural animation hair and cloth HDR grass shaders etc. etc.

Fable 2 will have some very demanding requirements to be played on the highest settings. Remember its still a port, It doesnt matter that the 360 is a mini pc (it helps yes) but fable was hardcore optimised for the 360, implementing scalability into te game will be tough and like evry port end in the higher class pc sektor.

What, its not allready out.

Oh ya for sure I already know Fable II wouldn't be as demanding as Crysis for sure. My argument is the general consensus for a gaming pc in general cost about 2k. This is what I kept reading in those kz2 vs. Crysis articles. Even though some people kept saying otherwise. These same people were proudly thumping their chests in that they didn't need a pc for next-gen. Now all a sudden a 360 exclusive could be released for the pc and the same people all of a sudden have gaming pc's...It really is amusing.

I was one of the few that know offhand that a 650 dollar pc can run crysis on high. As I did it myself.

Exclusives, huh?

Will it really make a difference if it comes out on pc? Besides graphics change and game change which they can fix the game. But would it make a difference sales wise to bash it saying microsoft lied saying it was going to be exclusive?

I cant stand the constant need to upgrade my pc to run the newest game, so I got a 360

Crysis's specification are not only high, but are obscenely high. Where as most 360 "Exclusives" run on more moderate requirements. A basic gaming machine that you may have used to play HL2 On 4 years ago would run a COD4/Gears2 as good if not better than the 360 running the game at 720p or lower. Factor in that most PC's have more ram, its a done deal.

There is a misconception that a PC game will require Crysis requirements just because Crysis does. It doesn't. Only Crysis requires a very expensive rig to run EVERYTHING on full, however it will RUN at lower quality on a machine. PC games are no longer being pushed by software as it used to be because the budgets aren't there I'd imagine.

Why on earth would you need anything 5x more powerful than a 360, to run its games? It honestly makes no sense.

The highest requirements for a multiplat that hasn't been really optimized for a PC was from assassins creed, and they released a patch to address that.

No one should claim anything on how it will run with a decent gaming rig. BTW why are people putting words in my mouth in that you'd need a high end pc to run fable II?

Have I not clearly stated at least 10 times in different articles that my 650 dollar pc can run crysis on high...I'll say it again the CONSOLE COMMUNITY or rather the N4G COMMUNITY thinks a gaming pc costs around 2k. seriously read my comments again I'm one to disprove the myth that gaming pc's are expensive.

second. The whole "low budget pc's can run a 360 port" is entirely up to the quality of the company doing the port. See GTA4. It takes a core i7 and 4870/GTX280 pc to run GTA4 on high because of an extremely shoddy port job by rockstar. YES the requirements to run GTA4 Exceed Crysis because of the terrible un-optimized conversion rockstar pulled.

This is M$ we're talking about so a Fable II port would probably be optimized. But no one should try and predict offhand pc requirements for this as it's entirely up to the quality of the port

more people will enjoy 360 exclusives , thats all.. and you dont have to buy a 360 to play those games.

OK, so I suppose you need to own Windows licenses in order to develop a game for Windows, I'll give you that. But you're realllllly stretching. I mean, practically every non-mac user in the world has a Windows license. Practically every business has windows licenses. Schools, retail stores, whatever. Almost everyone uses it. I'd bet money that the computers you see in the offices of Sony first party developers are running a Windows license. It really doesn't mean all that much that you need a Windows license to make a Windows game, I mean that license would've been sold regardless. About Visual Studio, well, you don't need Visual Studio to make a Windows game. There are any number of other C++ compilers out there, you don't need to use the one that Microsoft made.

Oh, and regarding this: "Also you need to get the MS stamp that your software is trusted and developed for the windows platform."

No you don't.

The visual studio compilers are not requires, but most company's use them anyway.
As visual studio has the highest market share of all c compilers.
So the odds are strong especially since its a MS published game, that they use the visual environment, as well as because the visual environment is the easiest dev tool to work in.

There are TONS of C compilers out there. People don't use Visual Studios for the compiler, it's because it's the most noob-friendly. But no, you don't need visual studio at all. And it's an insult to think that any of the top PC game developers use Visual Studio. Most of the games that you buy at the store will not use visual studio.

And no, you don't need visual studio to make a game. At bare minimum, you can make anything with just notepad.

Foxgod, the other problem with your point is that those purchases are being made on the production front. Therefore, regardless of whether the game even ever comes out, or whether it sells 0 copies or 1000 or 1 million, the exact same amount of money is going to Microsoft for the Windows licensing and compiler licensing fees if they go with Visual Studio. The game could be canceled halfway into production, but those fees have already been paid to Microsoft, and once they're paid, they don't need to be paid again. So, you see, it's nowhere NEAR the same as a game coming out for 360, which Microsoft gets a licensing fee for every COPY of the game sold. Meaning, you've supported Microsoft by paying for development kits and stuff in the production phase, AND additionally each customer who buys the game is supporting Microsoft by paying a royalty to Microsoft as part of the cost to buy the game.

The difference is that if I buy a 360 game that isn't published by Microsoft, a portion of my money goes to Microsoft. If I buy the same game on PC, none of my money is going to Microsoft, because the publisher doesn't have to give a royalty to MS for each copy of their game sold in that case. Microsoft makes more money on a million seller than a thousand seller on 360. Microsoft makes the same amount of money on a million seller as a thousand seller on PC, for games they don't publish themselves.

Now do you see how it's different?