Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 19 May 2010.
Meh....least there not total douche's like Ubisoft.
Hmm you're right (again dammit), some do make it to console. But most still never make it into English. It's a real shame as some look really intriguing. Americans usually have more luck there. Some JRPG's make it onto the American market but never filter through to Europe.
Prime example is Chrono Cross (sequel to Chrono Trigger) for the PSX. It never made it to Europe. I had to download the American version so I could play it through an emulator. Awesome game. Market missed there.
Epic licenses engines for games... What are they bitching about? The last game they made was Unreal 3, that I bought and soon forgot... great visuals, just didn't like the game :/ (have all the earlier UT's)
Do you think a game that is nearly 3 years old, with over 120 updates and zero ongoing revenue (through either expansion packs or subscription fees) can make enough money to keep developers going? What world do you live in?
It's no secret that most of Valves decisions are about increasing Steam install base. I am not guessing here.
Why do you think Valve is giving Portal away for free? To make friends? To keep gamers happy? No, they want PC and Mac users to install Steam. To buy other games. That is where they make money.
The developers I mentioned that I spoke to a while ago were very envious of Valve, as the freedom Steam revenues has given them makes them appear 'godlike' to gamers. In-turn causing people like you to wonder why aren't all developers like them.
Do not compare or ask other developers to learn from Valve when their business model is entirely different. It's apples and oranges.
Just because a game doesn't run at 1900x1200 or features 16xAA, doesn't mean they 'cut corners'.
Console games are cheaper to make? Dude how can you generalise so much? Which games are you comparing? Take a look at God of War 3, Gears of War 2, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption?
If anything, recent console exclusive games are more expensive to make than recent PC exclusive games.
How many recent PC exclusive games have half the production quality as any of the four I just mentioned?
How many recent PC exclusive games have half the budget of any of those four games I just mentioned?
Just because a game is not on the PC doesn't mean it cost less to make. Did you know that most common middleware in games (like Speedtree) costs way less to licence on the PC compared to consoles?
Again you're generalising way too much.
I really hope that one day you get the chance to go for a drink with a developer or two. It's an eye-opener. You'll find they do what makes financial sense. That is all. There are no other motives. Just because some choose to avoid the PC, that does not make them lazy.
We can argue back and forth all day. But ultimately it's sales figures that have the final word, not either of our opinions.
Did somebody mention Epic ?
Yes ? Oh, okay then... I guess it's my job to mention that UT3 sucked
Ah so you are guessing. You're assuming all of this stuff - but have no figures to back it up.
The world is flat, I mean what kind of idiot would say it's spherical? I mean I take this flat ruler and lay it on the ground - see! Perfectly flat.
Just because you think it is so, doesn't mean it is. Without figures your statements are merely opinion. The otherside to your argument is also opinion - since there are no figures to back that view up either. Debate away - but don't be under the illusion you're talking facts.
You're still guessing either way.
Which isn't what I said. By not making the game on the PC, they don't have to make it run at 1920x1200.
Do PLEASE learn to read my posts. I'm saying it's CHEAPER to make a game console exclusive than it is for them to make it on the PC as well.
See above, that's not what I said.
Again, not what I said, as above.
Again not what I said, see above.
Really, you're struggling aren't you? Yet again that isn't what I said, so I'll say it again, it's cheaper for them to do console exclusive than it is to do it on PC AND console.
You're not reading and responding to what I'm actually saying.
Again not what I said, why do you keep doing this? Additionally, my post was about Epic, I didn't say all game devs are lazy, I'm saying Epic are lazy, and they are, they also talk junk. They'd rather make up some bizarre rules to make more money, and complain about the second hand market, which they're relating to piracy (so by their own logic, the consoles are terrible for piracy as they have such a huge second hand market), they're simply not willing to accept that maybe their latest games aren't that good, so didn't sell well, and are instead trying to blame piracy.
I actually bought UT3 twice, the normal version and then the collector's edition (for the UE3 tuts and art book), I gave the first UT3 to a friend, so I'm not ranting about epic and saying everything they make is crap, but UT3 isn't that widely liked, and didn't sell too well.
You're not really arguing with what I'm saying, as you're not reading what I'm saying properly.
It's called talking to other developers and speculation. Valve is a private company, they do not release their figures.
If they're giving Portal away for free, why is it so hard to believe TF2 is a loss leader?
Lets say I'm wrong and TF2 (as a sole entity) does make a profit. Why do yo think other game developers don't do the same thing? Why is it incredibly rare for other (non-subscription based) games to have over 120 updates?
What other possible explanation could it be other than it's a loss leader?
The straw man arguement doesn't help your point.
By constantly updating TF2 they both keep players and attract new ones. The original players are required to fill servers so the game isn't seen as dead there for they keep selling units to newbies. No?
Calling guessing, speculation doesn't change the fact that you're still guessing.
It's your problem that you're treating guess work as something terrible.
This is correct, there are reports of valve even saying such things.
I'm not disputing the fact that they want to expand the steam userbase, but that's beside the point entirely.
But then, giving portal away doesn't actually mean they're losing money, they're simply not making any money on the free copies.
There's a big difference in losing money and not making any.
Portal has been out for three years now, they will have already made a lot of profit from it anyway, they can afford to do such things considering they've made so much profit.
Think for a second, how many games continue to sell well 3 years after their release?
Pretty much none of them, the first 6 months is probably where 99% of the profit for the game comes from.
It seems like valve continue to make profits on their own games, years after their release.
You're trying to apply standard business practices to valve, who aren't operating by standard practices.
Think, every copy of their own games they sell on steam will make them quite a bit when you remember that they don't need to rely on publishes like the standard business model.
Whatever man. The torrents speak for themselves. Consoles (other than PS3) still allow for piracy. On the 360 it's only getting worse as there are hundreds of websites/forums providing walkthroughs on modding, and it's not even that expensive to do and the effort required is very minimal. The piracy excuse is just lame. They are a business, yes, but how can a company expect to survive when it pisses off its hardcore user base? At a minimum, they should at least port their games at a future date, and ensure quality ports (what happened to XNA?).
Why can't they go away with retail and just go Steam on PC? It's convenient for gamers and lessens the ability that their games would be pirated. Every major title is on Steam nowadays....
To be fair to NuTech, I read through all these comments and only when I got to this bit did I realise that you were saying it's cheaper to develop games exclusively for consoles than it is to develop for consoles and PC together.
Before you lay all the blame for this miscommunication on NuTech, you might consider reviewing your own comments before posting to make sure you're being as clear as you can possibly be.
Funny that all of my friends combined have probably bought no more than 5 xbox or wii games?
It's extremely naive to think console piracy is low. That's like saying the PSX, had no piracy what so ever...
There's a lot of money in releasing unoriginal rehashes.
That's a nice dream, but let me ask you something. Why don't other developers do the exact same thing if it works just like you said?
It's impossible to debate with somebody who changes their tune every post. Your posts are not clear, how many people have misunderstood you in this thread alone? Review your sentence structure before you criticize my comprehension skills.
I think the point you're now trying to make is that publishers don't want their games going multi-platform because the production costs go up, is that correct? And this somehow makes Epic lazy?
If bringing their console exclusive title to the PC was going to make them more money in the long term, they would do it (unless they have an exclusivity agreement, which is rare). Cash is king.
Nobody is their right mind would avoid a profitable platform because they couldn't be bothered to port it.
Yes, Xbox piracy is increasing, but it's still in the minority. Plus modding a Xbox requires quite a bit of technical know-how.
How many times have you heard PC developers say there are over double, triple, quadruple (or even ten times on the more popular games) the amount of people playing their game than copies sold?
Unfortunately piracy is not an "excuse", it's a very very real problem.
Read this before saying "whatever man".
Because we (the hardcore user base) are in the minority. We give ourselves far too much importance when it comes to influence and buying power.
That sounds like a great idea, but lets say that Steam made perfect DRM so that their games couldn't be pirated (fat chance, but this is hypothetical). The installed user-base of Steam is about 13-14M. That isn't a big enough 'pool' to try and sell a AAA PC port too. Retail still matters a lot.
Now break that "consoles" down into their 3 catagories, playstation, xbox and Wii, then see how that 16% compares, it wont look so different, afterall, the 3 consoles are exactly that, 3 different platforms. That chart just makes it look like you only have to develop for a single console rather than 3 different onces.
Other Devs, i'm looking at Dice here, don't even get round to ironing out all the bugs in the software they release why bother supporting your product once they've bought it? Simple good will is priceless i'll almost certainly buy any thing valve release on launch day, i'll almost certainly think twice about buying anything with EA on the cover, especially a Dice game.
Well you could do what Mw2 did and alot of games do, sell via Steam and Retail.
But have the game attached to Steam. Simples.
Either way a business's main focus should not be money.
Dunno about you i can see up to 24% there.
Remind me again what platform MMO's appear on again?
Also they seperated PC stuff, yet combined almost everything into the console platform?
And correct me if im wrong but downloads are still not included in any figures yet right?
Separate names with a comma.