Aller au contenu

Photo

Are PC exclusives a safer bet?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
312 réponses à ce sujet

#276
DaJe

DaJe
  • Members
  • 962 messages

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

4 is an invalid leap of logic, OP. Not all shareholders are that way. In fact, if all were that way, there's never be ANY continually good game series (or, for that matter, any continually good ANYthing). Some understand that you need to spend money to make money, and some understand that the quick payoff is almost always less than the long-term payoff. Not all are like what you imagine them to be.


I wish that were true. Seeing as each ME game had continually less dev time, the OP's logic does not seem too far fetched, specially considering that there has been a lot of DLC for ME2 that was developed at the same time as ME3, drawing resources.
It really looked like someone wanted to make money of the brand but didn't give a rats ass about actually finishing this epic series in an apporiate manner.
That is always the problem when those investing money in a medium are not consumers of that medium.

#277
mmm buddah23

mmm buddah23
  • Members
  • 204 messages

DaJe wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

4 is an invalid leap of logic, OP. Not all shareholders are that way. In fact, if all were that way, there's never be ANY continually good game series (or, for that matter, any continually good ANYthing). Some understand that you need to spend money to make money, and some understand that the quick payoff is almost always less than the long-term payoff. Not all are like what you imagine them to be.


I wish that were true. Seeing as each ME game had continually less dev time, the OP's logic does not seem too far fetched, specially considering that there has been a lot of DLC for ME2 that was developed at the same time as ME3, drawing resources.
It really looked like someone wanted to make money of the brand but didn't give a rats ass about actually finishing this epic series in an apporiate manner.
That is always the problem when those investing money in a medium are not consumers of that medium.

The fact that ME 3 was developed for a shorter period of time is EA's fault, and EA makes games for console and PC. Deadlines set in stone ruin games, just as happened with the technical failure that Skyrim was at release.

#278
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages
I'm surprised you don't see more devs going for PC/Tablet/Cell Phone instead instead of PC/Console. The former gives you the opportunity to use OpenGL instead of Direct X (so Windows, Mac and Linux) and most cell phones these days are about as powerful as a console and touch screens also are pretty good for a RTS UI.

However, while I would appreciate some more devs building for the PC first and then cutting back for the consoles, it wouldn't make financial sense. The tech for the PCs is about 3 generations ahead of the consoles now in terms of graphics capabilities and getting the most out of that tech requires more technical and art resources.

There are some advantages to going for PC only for a small dev., they have no licensing fees to deal with (Sony and Microsoft charge about a 10 fee for each game on their system), it's easier to distribute your product (you can go without a publisher) and you keep more from each sale (digital distribution has zero production costs but costs the same as physical). If you release the dev. tools you can also use the community for debugging and it's easier to release patches. Because the PCs are more powerful you can also get away with less optimized code and still get console quality.

#279
mmm buddah23

mmm buddah23
  • Members
  • 204 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

I'm surprised you don't see more devs going for PC/Tablet/Cell Phone instead instead of PC/Console. The former gives you the opportunity to use OpenGL instead of Direct X (so Windows, Mac and Linux) and most cell phones these days are about as powerful as a console and touch screens also are pretty good for a RTS UI.

However, while I would appreciate some more devs building for the PC first and then cutting back for the consoles, it wouldn't make financial sense. The tech for the PCs is about 3 generations ahead of the consoles now in terms of graphics capabilities and getting the most out of that tech requires more technical and art resources.

There are some advantages to going for PC only for a small dev., they have no licensing fees to deal with (Sony and Microsoft charge about a 10 fee for each game on their system), it's easier to distribute your product (you can go without a publisher) and you keep more from each sale (digital distribution has zero production costs but costs the same as physical). If you release the dev. tools you can also use the community for debugging and it's easier to release patches. Because the PCs are more powerful you can also get away with less optimized code and still get console quality.

Console gaming will never go away, in fact its wuite the opposite, more companies are going console, and moving away from PC. Bungie did it, Epic did it, Capcom is doing it. Just how it is, PC is mostly going to be for MMO's and RTS games eventually. Just like consoles are going to be for everything else.

Modifié par mmm buddah23, 28 avril 2012 - 10:30 .


#280
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages

mmm buddah23 wrote...

Console gaming will never go away, in fact its wuite the opposite, more companies are going console, and moving away from PC. Bungie did it, Epic did it, Capcom is doing it. Just how it is, PC is mostly going to be for MMO's and RTS games eventually. Just like consoles are going to be for everything else.


I doubt that this trend will continue past a couple more console interations, because consoles are becoming PCs: They have CPUs, GPUs, RAM, Hard Disks, Optical Drives, Internet connections... the technical hardware is the same. How long before someone releases a keyboard and mouse peripheral with some productivity software?  Then the transformation is complete. 

#281
mmm buddah23

mmm buddah23
  • Members
  • 204 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...

Console gaming will never go away, in fact its wuite the opposite, more companies are going console, and moving away from PC. Bungie did it, Epic did it, Capcom is doing it. Just how it is, PC is mostly going to be for MMO's and RTS games eventually. Just like consoles are going to be for everything else.


I doubt that this trend will continue past a couple more console interations, because consoles are becoming PCs: They have CPUs, GPUs, RAM, Hard Disks, Optical Drives, Internet connections... the technical hardware is the same. How long before someone releases a keyboard and mouse peripheral with some productivity software?  Then the transformation is complete. 

They already have a keybaord, a tiny one, but we do ^_^ Im all for multiplatform games, problem is, the creators need a much larger team to do it correctly -on time-. I just hope the next gen of games are not on disc, maybe compact flash drives, much more efficient, less heat, more storage space, shorter load times.....much much better.

#282
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages

mmm buddah23 wrote...
They already have a keybaord, a tiny one, but we do ^_^ Im all for multiplatform games, problem is, the creators need a much larger team to do it correctly -on time-. I just hope the next gen of games are not on disc, maybe compact flash drives, much more efficient, less heat, more storage space, shorter load times.....much much better.


I figure they'll go pure digital for the next generation with cloud storage for your purchases/saves that you pay a monthly fee for, and a hard disk that can hold the 5 or 6 games you might be playing at one time.  It would be interesting to see them use SSD for storage, but standard hard disks are still cheaper and, being more prone to breakage, they'll sell more units (though, IIRC, with the XBox you can swap out a broken hardisk with a PC one). 

Edit: I'm curious to see what will happen with the GPU on the next XBox as well, I recall reading that nVidia said they wouldn't make a GPU for another console and I'm not sure what the AMD/ATI stand would be.  I wonder if MS will try to expand their hardware assets to build one in house, or who they'll contract to. 

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 28 avril 2012 - 10:59 .


#283
Emzamination

Emzamination
  • Members
  • 3 782 messages
This thread...These users...so Deliciously beautiful :crying:

#284
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
They already have a keybaord, a tiny one, but we do ^_^ Im all for multiplatform games, problem is, the creators need a much larger team to do it correctly -on time-. I just hope the next gen of games are not on disc, maybe compact flash drives, much more efficient, less heat, more storage space, shorter load times.....much much better.


I figure they'll go pure digital for the next generation with cloud storage for your purchases/saves that you pay a monthly fee for, and a hard disk that can hold the 5 or 6 games you might be playing at one time.  It would be interesting to see them use SSD for storage, but standard hard disks are still cheaper and, being more prone to breakage, they'll sell more units (though, IIRC, with the XBox you can swap out a broken hardisk with a PC one). 


Can't see that working too well. It's one thing to download old games or a game every couple of months but a 20-30 GB download a pop not interested.
Generation after maybe , but if they are charging the same for DD as for retail I don't see the incentive.

#285
kingtigernz

kingtigernz
  • Members
  • 210 messages
The gaming industry is going to better for all of us as soon as these current relic consoles are retired.Developers are dumbing down their games to get them to console.Talk about compromising someone's "artistic integrity".

#286
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

kingtigernz wrote...

The gaming industry is going to better for all of us as soon as these current relic consoles are retired.Developers are dumbing down their games to get them to console.Talk about compromising someone's "artistic integrity".


Nah they are dumbing down games because of cost and time requirements.

#287
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
They already have a keybaord, a tiny one, but we do ^_^ Im all for multiplatform games, problem is, the creators need a much larger team to do it correctly -on time-. I just hope the next gen of games are not on disc, maybe compact flash drives, much more efficient, less heat, more storage space, shorter load times.....much much better.


I figure they'll go pure digital for the next generation with cloud storage for your purchases/saves that you pay a monthly fee for, and a hard disk that can hold the 5 or 6 games you might be playing at one time.  It would be interesting to see them use SSD for storage, but standard hard disks are still cheaper and, being more prone to breakage, they'll sell more units (though, IIRC, with the XBox you can swap out a broken hardisk with a PC one). 


Can't see that working too well. It's one thing to download old games or a game every couple of months but a 20-30 GB download a pop not interested.
Generation after maybe , but if they are charging the same for DD as for retail I don't see the incentive.


DRM to stop console piracy, they can set up their own digital stores to cut out the middleman (which increases their profits and they get monthly fees), and, since you would have to be connected to play, they can do more datamining to decide where to target their exclusives.  They can also claim they're being green by eliminating physical packaging and shipping.

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 28 avril 2012 - 11:20 .


#288
abaris

abaris
  • Members
  • 1 860 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

DRM to stop console piracy, they can set up their own digital stores to cut out the middleman (which increases their profits and they get monthly fees), and, since you would have to be connected to play, they can do more datamining to decide where to target their exclusives.  They can also claim they're being green by physical packaging and shipping.


It won't work as long even Western countries aren't covered by high speed connections.

They would lose money by making that exclusive, since they would lock out a whole bunch of potential customers even in the USA or Australia. Even the densely populated regions of Europe don't have complete highspeed coverage.

Might be a thing of the future, but right now I doubt it's a valid business model.

#289
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages

abaris wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

DRM to stop console piracy, they can set up their own digital stores to cut out the middleman (which increases their profits and they get monthly fees), and, since you would have to be connected to play, they can do more datamining to decide where to target their exclusives.  They can also claim they're being green by physical packaging and shipping.


It won't work as long even Western countries aren't covered by high speed connections.

They would lose money by making that exclusive, since they would lock out a whole bunch of potential customers even in the USA or Australia. Even the densely populated regions of Europe don't have complete highspeed coverage.

Might be a thing of the future, but right now I doubt it's a valid business model.


I guess you're right, but I still expect to see MS and Sony unveiling their own versions of Steam with the next console for those with high speed connections.

#290
DonYourAviators

DonYourAviators
  • Members
  • 211 messages

The Razman wrote...

DonYourAviators wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Mildiner wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.


My hypothesis does not depend upon the Witcher 2 being any good, it was simply an example.

But for the record, I quite liked it and I might like it even more with the 10GB of free additional content I've just be given.

It does, kind of though. The Witcher 2 releasing free stuff and all of that is only possible because the devs are disregarding the whole issue which your premise is based on. They can afford to be PC exclusive and to release free stuff because they have a very profitable side-business giving them financial security (GOG.com). Just like Valve can afford to not release new games until they're exactly how they want them because with Steam running the way it is they never have to worry about the money.

PC exclusives are not only financially unsound, but your premise that we would see benefits as a result is flawed for that reason. The people who are showing benefits by being PC exclusive have other means of income supporting their business.

The problem with your argument here and elsewhere is that your opinion is often wrong.

Which is why you were able to formulate such a well-thought out and verbose rebuttal to it?

<_<

I just don't care to put my time into a lost cause that has no ambition to listen or learn. Hopefully you can understand.

#291
The Razman

The Razman
  • Members
  • 1 638 messages

DonYourAviators wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DonYourAviators wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Mildiner wrote...

The Razman wrote...

There is a small problem with your hypothesis.

The Witcher 2 is terrible.


My hypothesis does not depend upon the Witcher 2 being any good, it was simply an example.

But for the record, I quite liked it and I might like it even more with the 10GB of free additional content I've just be given.

It does, kind of though. The Witcher 2 releasing free stuff and all of that is only possible because the devs are disregarding the whole issue which your premise is based on. They can afford to be PC exclusive and to release free stuff because they have a very profitable side-business giving them financial security (GOG.com). Just like Valve can afford to not release new games until they're exactly how they want them because with Steam running the way it is they never have to worry about the money.

PC exclusives are not only financially unsound, but your premise that we would see benefits as a result is flawed for that reason. The people who are showing benefits by being PC exclusive have other means of income supporting their business.

The problem with your argument here and elsewhere is that your opinion is often wrong.

Which is why you were able to formulate such a well-thought out and verbose rebuttal to it?

<_<

I just don't care to put my time into a lost cause that has no ambition to listen or learn. Hopefully you can understand.

You took the time to search out a thread that had dropped off the first page, to write a response to a message that was posted about 10 pages back ... so your time doesn't appear to be that precious.

Ahhhh, trolls. They're things of beauty.

#292
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

abaris wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

DRM to stop console piracy, they can set up their own digital stores to cut out the middleman (which increases their profits and they get monthly fees), and, since you would have to be connected to play, they can do more datamining to decide where to target their exclusives.  They can also claim they're being green by physical packaging and shipping.


It won't work as long even Western countries aren't covered by high speed connections.

They would lose money by making that exclusive, since they would lock out a whole bunch of potential customers even in the USA or Australia. Even the densely populated regions of Europe don't have complete highspeed coverage.

Might be a thing of the future, but right now I doubt it's a valid business model.


I guess you're right, but I still expect to see MS and Sony unveiling their own versions of Steam with the next console for those with high speed connections.


Generation after this one maybe. But by going digital in the next few years your going to limit who you can sell to. MS will do almost anything to avoid putting a blu ray into their machine , but that effectively gives anyone else the whole of the casual market on a plate.

You can already download full games on PSN , but it takes longer to do that than to drive to local supermarket and buy the thing. It's not any cheaper either in most cases.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 28 avril 2012 - 01:43 .


#293
Gatt9

Gatt9
  • Members
  • 1 748 messages

mmm buddah23 wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

I'm surprised you don't see more devs going for PC/Tablet/Cell Phone instead instead of PC/Console. The former gives you the opportunity to use OpenGL instead of Direct X (so Windows, Mac and Linux) and most cell phones these days are about as powerful as a console and touch screens also are pretty good for a RTS UI.

However, while I would appreciate some more devs building for the PC first and then cutting back for the consoles, it wouldn't make financial sense. The tech for the PCs is about 3 generations ahead of the consoles now in terms of graphics capabilities and getting the most out of that tech requires more technical and art resources.

There are some advantages to going for PC only for a small dev., they have no licensing fees to deal with (Sony and Microsoft charge about a 10 fee for each game on their system), it's easier to distribute your product (you can go without a publisher) and you keep more from each sale (digital distribution has zero production costs but costs the same as physical). If you release the dev. tools you can also use the community for debugging and it's easier to release patches. Because the PCs are more powerful you can also get away with less optimized code and still get console quality.

Console gaming will never go away, in fact its wuite the opposite, more companies are going console, and moving away from PC. Bungie did it, Epic did it, Capcom is doing it. Just how it is, PC is mostly going to be for MMO's and RTS games eventually. Just like consoles are going to be for everything else.


Actually,  consoles are going away,  very shortly in fact.  I don't mean this rudely,  but I can tell you're pretty young.  The statement that "Consoles aren't going away" tells me you're between 13 and maybe mid-20's.

The reason I bring that up is because you (And many others) have grown up in the Psx generation and are making the mistake of thinking that because it's been around most of your years,  it always will be. 

But it's actually the 3rd generation of console hardware with a lifespan.  The first was the Atari/Coleco/Intellivision generation,  the second was the NES/Genesis/SNES generation.  Each one eventually tapering out and dieing off without any viable replacement.

This isn't any different,  the tapering is already happening.  Sales are dropping by catastrophic percentages month after month,  for most of the last 2 years.  Even with CoD,  BF3,  and Skyrim last year,  the year was down 8% in sales.  If you cut out just CoD,  it's closer to 20%.  I know people will throw out tons of excuses,  "It's the economy",  "It's digital sales".  At the height of the recession,  video game sales were growing.  When they added in digital sales,  it was still down 1%.

The problem with consoles,  and why they eventually die is many faceted.

1.  Controls limit diversity.  Because you're limited to a gamepad,  the number of potential genres you can have are largely limited.  You can't have RTS,  Simulators are problematic,  point & click interfaces are problematic.  The controls lend themselves well to action games,  but beyond that,  they're largely a limiting factor.

2.  Publishers won't fund games they don't think will sell to every console owner.  Publishers primary goal is to generate revenue,  not great games.  They pick and choose what ideas get developed,  and they only pick the ideas they think will sell to the very highest percentage of owners,  or that can be redesigned to do so.  Their primary research strategy is "What sold well last year?  Make that."  There's no way a publisher would've greenlit Minecraft,  it's not "Mainstream" enough.  Keep in mind,  EA forbade Maxis to develop The Sims,  Will Wright had to do it undercover and drop it on them.  Many killer ideas are left undeveloped.

3.  The license restrictions prevent independent studios from releasing on the platforms without publishers.  So either you do what they say,  or you don't make your game.  Which puts us right back into #2.

4.  Platform owners have veto power.  Platform owners only goal is to make revenue,  they get to have the last word on what goes on their platform.  Which leads us back into #2,  just replace the word "publisher" with MS/Sony.

Console platforms are inherently self-terminating.  All of the above combine to create a stagnant platform that eventually runs it's course because it ends up just releasing the same experience over and over and over.  Eventually,  people get tired of it.

The mobile app thing is just a replacement for handhelds,  with no real potential beyond that.  The early success stories are due entirely to the novelty of the control interface,  and much like the Wii,  will prove to be a much smaller impact than people currently think it will.

Tablets have more potential,  but they're ultimately limited by hardware.  It's likely they'll end up an interface device for PC's via thin-client/networking with the processing done by the PC.

The PC will become the mainstream device here very shortly.  There'll be 2 different flavors depending on your finances.

-Internet based streaming,  with processing being handled offsite by someone else,  either the ISP or a remote server.  Subscription based,  and packaged,  much like TV today.

-Home server.  It'll be installed in the basement,  you'll never actually touch it.  It'll power screens around the house via wired and wireless networking and wireless peripherals.  Tablets will be able to act as displays for it.

Consoles,  they're on their downward slope.  They're a relic from the past becoming increasingly less relevant.

In closing,  since I know someone will try it,  "I'm not paying to upgrade my PC all the time!".  We're approaching the atomic-level in CPU design.  If you don't know what that means,  We're almost at the point where we can't shrink processors anymore,  We're almost done with conventional design.  PC hardware is not too far away from no longer iterating.

#294
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 775 messages

The Razman wrote...

Just one question.

Would showing that threesome in graphic detail between you, Zevran and Isabella been a particularly mature thing for Bioware to have done?



Well, considering one of the more common criticisms of the ME3 endings is that we never saw any kind of visible impact from our decisions, beyond color changes, it probably couldn't hurt.  At the least, I can't be surprised if they went into detail since I willingly chose that option. But then, some would also argue that threesomes and foursomes aren't mature as a concept in the first place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 avril 2012 - 07:06 .


#295
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 708 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Can't see that working too well. It's one thing to download old games or a game every couple of months but a 20-30 GB download a pop not interested.


I know I've asked this before, but what kind of bandwidth/ download limit constraints are you operating under?

A 30 GB download would take my PC about five hours, which compares pretty favorably with going to a store and is obviously much better than buying from Amazon. Somewhat less time if I carried my PC downstairs to the modem rather than using the wireless connection. (That's the theoretical maximum, I haven't actually bought any games over the net yet). Edit: I don't have any monthly downloading limits.

But I've got no idea at all how many people have connections as good as mine, or will have such in the near future.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 avril 2012 - 07:34 .


#296
Alex_SM

Alex_SM
  • Members
  • 662 messages

abaris wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

DRM to stop console piracy, they can set up their own digital stores to cut out the middleman (which increases their profits and they get monthly fees), and, since you would have to be connected to play, they can do more datamining to decide where to target their exclusives.  They can also claim they're being green by physical packaging and shipping.


It won't work as long even Western countries aren't covered by high speed connections.

They would lose money by making that exclusive, since they would lock out a whole bunch of potential customers even in the USA or Australia. Even the densely populated regions of Europe don't have complete highspeed coverage.

Might be a thing of the future, but right now I doubt it's a valid business model.


It's already happening with PC market. Digital sales are around 50% of total sales, and lots of games are being released only digital. 

#297
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*

Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
  • Guests
I don't think things are that certain, Gatt.

1. Is not true, necessarily. There are keyboards and mice for the PS3 and 360 that could be used for games. They haven't currently, but it isn't out of reason.

2. I just don't think you can assume this. I'm certain that if you go to a gamestop and look at the console games, you'll find games that are definitely NOT intended for a large demographic.

GranTurismo or Forza Motorsport, for instance. Actual in-depth racing simulators are not very popular, yet those companies make exclusives. So I don't think a sweeping statement like this is valid.

3 is a very valid point. However, are there license restrictions on Windows? Mac? I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but i don't know.

4 is essentially 3 reworded.

#298
abaris

abaris
  • Members
  • 1 860 messages

Alex_SM wrote...

It's already happening with PC market. Digital sales are around 50% of total sales, and lots of games are being released only digital. 


Of course it makes up a big piece of the market. But digital only won't happen in the foreseeable future.

#299
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 708 messages
I'm not sure about that. The customers you would lose by going digital already are making you less money than digital customers, both from manufacturing costs and from the retailer split of revenues. When digital purchases of PC games reach, say, 66%, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see physical copies vanish very quickly. Dropping physical copies won't lose you all of the physical customers -- many will give in and buy digital if they have no other option.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 avril 2012 - 07:43 .


#300
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*

Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
  • Guests

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure about that. The customers you would lose by going digital already are making you less money than digital customers, both from manufacturing costs and from the retailer split of revenues. When digital purchases of PC games reach, say, 66%, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see physical copies vanish very quickly. Dropping physical copies won't lose you all of the physical customers -- many will give in and buy digital if they have no other option.


Where do you get this information from? I find it very hard--make that impossible--to believe.

There are many people that live in areas without high-speed internet, as someone already said. And, some will not simply on personal feeling.

Myself among them. I don't buy things online. The day I can't buy my game in a store is the day I quit playing games.