[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

I hate these No True Scotsman arguments. Considering power in isolation is dumb. Every consumer has different preferences regarding power, convenience, software library, controls, non-gaming features, and price. The goal is to hit the sweet spot for as many consumers as possible and make a profit.

On topic with the Wii U, remember, the Wii is quite a bit more powerful than 2 of the three last-gen consoles. So it is entirely conceivable that the Wii U ends up being a fair clip more powerful than either the 360 or the PS3 while still being substantially less powerful than either next-gen console.

There are a lot of other things to be considered. It won't do to spend $100m developing a game with a sales target of 1m. I know some people here dream of a day when it costs a billion dollars to make a video game, but that isn't happening next gen. You're not going to see $1b worth of content creation next gen. You're going to see more economizing on ways to spend $10-$100m. But what that means is content will be much more scalable. You couldn't scale Ratchet & Clank to run on an N64. Or scale Final Fantasy VII run on a SNES (I mean "scale," not "redesign in 2D ). But Call of Duty could be scaled down to run on a Wii. Battlefield 3 could be cut down to run on a PS3.

I think that's going to be even more possible next gen. Even if Wii U vs. PS4 is the same numerical power differential as Wii vs PS3, even more content is going to be scalable, and power will be less of a barrier to content than it currently is.

You may be spot on with the scaling as long as Nintendo has a dx11 capable GPU in the box, and a decent multi-core Powerx CPU.

On the issue of soaring content creation costs prohibiting substantial gains, I agree there will need to be a paradigm shift at some point in the near future for how games are created. Otherwise we will be left with uber powerhouse consoles that are created for a handful of companies (that can afford to push the console) to put out a dozen games over the span of the console cycle.

Without this radical new approach toward reducing game design costs while increasing quality, we may well be stuck with underpowered consoles from Nintendo, Sony and MS as the cost/benefit would be rather limited.

[Rodéric]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

Excuse me?

Does your post counter the information I put forth? Does it add anything to the conversation?

From what I can gather, your post is nothing other than a flame bait and insult.

I quoted the single sentence my comment was referring too.
If you read recent Valve interviews you would have better idea of the impact of piracy on games. (About null.)
Piracy is a scapegoat agitated by people with an agenda, but not the cause of what you mentioned.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Rodéric

I quoted the single sentence my comment was referring too.
If you read recent Valve interviews you would have better idea of the impact of piracy on games. (About null.)
Piracy is a scapegoat agitated by people with an agenda, but not the cause of what you mentioned.

And you don't think Gabe has a vested interest in presenting PC piracy as a non-issue?

Conversely, I've seen Joker stating that many developers/publishers DO believe it is a big issue, and because of that, many of them refuse to target the PC.

Take a look at the software on offer for the PC over the past 5 years. How much of it is designed with the PC as the target and how much of it is merely a console port with some scaled up assets?

Devs/Pubs know they make their money on console because piracy is not as big of an issue there.

For Steam, the only solid info we have is that there are 40 million users (that's a lot of gamers) and that Steam sales doubled in 2011. We know nothing of concrete numbers of units moved or total revenue past or present. And this is only one channel. I'm sure someone that has NPD data could shed light on retail sales, but I've yet to see anything concrete lately other than an uptick right around the time BF3 came out and started taking advantage of upper-tier HW.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Rodéric

I quoted the single sentence my comment was referring too.
If you read recent Valve interviews you would have better idea of the impact of piracy on games. (About null.)
Piracy is a scapegoat agitated by people with an agenda, but not the cause of what you mentioned.

Are you referencing the part where he said that cracking the DRM didn't affect sales numbers? If so then that is a weak argument. Piracy is very hard to quantify in to actual lost sales, but to say that the effect is "about null" is saying a lot with weak information on a limited situation (Valve is not everything + pirates know a game will be cracked soon) If pirating a game was very hard or impossible the situation and effects would likely be completely different. Now Pirates don't even have to consider buying a game.

The argument that large group of people will buy some non essential goods as much, when said goods are easily available for free vs when they are not available for free defies logic imo.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

And you don't think Gabe has a vested interest in presenting PC piracy as a non-issue?

Conversely, I've seen Joker stating that many developers/publishers DO believe it is a big issue, and because of that, many of them refuse to target the PC.

Take a look at the software on offer for the PC over the past 5 years. How much of it is designed with the PC as the target and how much of it is merely a console port with some scaled up assets?

Devs/Pubs know they make their money on console because piracy is not as big of an issue there.

For Steam, the only solid info we have is that there are 40 million users (that's a lot of gamers) and that Steam sales doubled in 2011. We know nothing of concrete numbers of units moved or total revenue past or present. And this is only one channel. I'm sure someone that has NPD data could shed light on retail sales, but I've yet to see anything concrete lately other than an uptick right around the time BF3 came out and started taking advantage of upper-tier HW.

The music/movie industy keeps crying how much they lose on piracy as well but in reality they are still making billion dollar profits so that makes you wonder actually how bad the impact is.

No doubt piracy has a influence on pc game sales but if you read that Remedy broke even on Alan Wake in 48 hours that also makes you wonder if it's as bad as some devs/pubs want to make you believe.

[Rodéric]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

And you don't think Gabe has a vested interest in presenting PC piracy as a non-issue?

Valve is one of the rare organisation to have the ability to get facts.

Conversely, I've seen Joker stating that many developers/publishers DO believe it is a big issue, and because of that, many of them refuse to target the PC.

The problem is exactly that, it is a belief.

Take a look at the software on offer for the PC over the past 5 years. How much of it is designed with the PC as the target and how much of it is merely a console port with some scaled up assets?

Do you want 100M potential customers, or would you prefer 300M ?

Devs/Pubs know they make their money on console because piracy is not as big of an issue there.

There's a difference in profit margin per game, and in market size.

For Steam, the only solid info we have is that there are 40 million users (that's a lot of gamers) and that Steam sales doubled in 2011. We know nothing of concrete numbers of units moved or total revenue past or present. And this is only one channel. I'm sure someone that has NPD data could shed light on retail sales, but I've yet to see anything concrete lately other than an uptick right around the time BF3 came out and started taking advantage of upper-tier HW.

Insiders have private informations that can't be shared.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

evs/Pubs know they make their money on console because piracy is not as big of an issue there.

Piracy might not be as big of an issue on consoles, but console games 2nd hand sales are - in fact they're bigger problem than PC piracy according to some publisher / dev, can't remember which

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Rodéric

I quoted the single sentence my comment was referring too.
If you read recent Valve interviews you would have better idea of the impact of piracy on games. (About null.)
Piracy is a scapegoat agitated by people with an agenda, but not the cause of what you mentioned.

The Steam hardware survey tells us all we need to know about why developers aren't targeting as high performance.

In a nutshell most developers likely aren't going to target >dual core, >512mb video ram, >DX10, >2GB ram. It just so happens that consoles are around the current target specification for Steam games which is convenient for all involved really. Developers who made games which were big, expensive and unplayable on the majority of systems have in the majority gone out of business.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Rodéric

Valve is one of the rare organisation to have the ability to get facts

And they are also working with an agenda. Until they put out actual hard numbers of revenue and units over a period of time, we won't know anything more than the lack of PC targeted games in recent years tells us (that's all you really need to know).

The problem is exactly that, it is a belief.

What matters is that belief is strong enough to warrant targeting a spec baseline that was established in 2005, and some refusing to release on PC at all.

Do you want 100M potential customers, or would you prefer 300M ?

With that line of thinking, why does any developer ever create anything for newly launched consoles?

In fact, why bother with console baseline spec at all? ps360 is just over 100m right now...

Why not target 600 million? Screw it, let's go for 1b+ and just make web browser games. In fact, forget all this game stuff with limited userbases and minimum specs, let's target 6+ billion and make filtered water cartridges!

At some point, a developer says I want to make x, and I think x people would buy it. If they don't have the hardware for it, they can get it (aka a "system mover").

There's a difference in profit margin per game, and in market size.

Ya think?

That doesn't change the fact of what is happening in games development with high end PC-centric development becoming almost nonexistent, and the vast majority being console ports.

There are those that want to make browser games and those that want to make rich interactive experiences (modern games).

Insiders have private informations that can't be shared.

And yet we get npd numbers every month. As I said, someone with that knowledge could shed light on retail sales.


Bringing this back around on topic; Thus the baseline of whatever is established in the nextgen (Nintendo/Sony/MS) will be the baseline of what is also established for PC because the PC games will (until piracy is under control) be essentially console ports with slightly improved graphics.

So I hope Nintendo manage to somehow figure out how to get a 120mm2 7770 class GPU in their box. I know with it being such a large chip that it will be difficult for Nintendo to figure out a way to make any money on the box through it's lifetime with the GPU budget eating up so much, but they're pretty smart, so I'm sure they can figure out a way to make it happen.

[fearsomepirate]

If you look at PC games historically, very few technologically advanced games surpass a million units. And that's been true since the 90s. What's changed is that you can no longer deliver technologically cutting-edge content for a budget that justifies low sales. It's why Rage, Battlefield 3, and Crysis 2 all got console versions. It's why the Call of Duty series moved to the consoles for the lead version. Even STALKER 2 has been announced for consoles (if it actually gets made). It's just never been a big market, and if you adjust for population growth, it's been pretty stagnant since the 90s. If anything, the consoles have enabled the continuation of PC gaming as such. Who knows if Battlefield 3 would have been able to come out this year and look as good as it does if it hadn't been for the fact that the content could be downsampled to the consoles?

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

If you look at PC games historically, very few technologically advanced games surpass a million units. And that's been true since the 90s. What's changed is that you can no longer deliver technologically cutting-edge content for a budget that justifies low sales. It's why Rage, Battlefield 3, and Crysis 2 all got console versions. It's why the Call of Duty series moved to the consoles for the lead version. Even STALKER 2 has been announced for consoles (if it actually gets made). It's just never been a big market, and if you adjust for population growth, it's been pretty stagnant since the 90s. If anything, the consoles have enabled the continuation of PC gaming as such. Who knows if Battlefield 3 would have been able to come out this year and look as good as it does if it hadn't been for the fact that the content could be downsampled to the consoles?

I don't think anyone would suggest for there to not be a console version of a hi-spec PC game. BF3 is a good example of something that hasn't happened for quite a few years ... A title that actually targeted cutting edge (2 year old dx11) technology and then down-sampled to consoles rather than the reverse.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

The problem with the Hardcore=PC_Gamer argument is that PC games until BF3 were essentially console games. Slightly better textures, better render resolution, better filtering, better AA (sometimes), but overall, roughly the same poly counts, the same shaders, the same lighting, the same physics, the same interactivity (or lack of), the same AI... etc


The hope of pushing console hardware spec is to not only want a more powerful wii/ps3/xb360, but to also push developers in producing BETTER PC games as well.

As is, PC games are roughly console+ experiences.

In BF3 at least, the higher resolution and frame rate make quite a difference in gameplay. The higher resolution makes it possible to "see" longer, and the higher frame rate make the game actually fun to play (due to better response and interactivity).

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

I don't think anyone would suggest for there to not be a console version of a hi-spec PC game. BF3 is a good example of something that hasn't happened for quite a few years ... A title that actually targeted cutting edge (2 year old dx11) technology and then down-sampled to consoles rather than the reverse.

I think even BF3 is arguable. I've played both the PC and console versions and I dont think the gulf between them is the Grand Canyon.

Dice even slipped up and let out that "PC was the lead at first, but later we moved to console lead" at some point. http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefie...les-after-all/

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Rangers

I think even BF3 is arguable. I've played both the PC and console versions and I dont think the gulf between them is the Grand Canyon.

Dice even slipped up and let out that "PC was the lead at first, but later we moved to console lead" at some point. http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefie...les-after-all/

True, but even with that, that's still as good as it gets for PC gaming these days...


Here's to hoping Nintendo can manage to shoehorn a HD7770 in the box to help bring up the overall performance baseline nextgen.

[babybumb]

Nintendo seems to have rough time convincing 3rd parties to commit resources to system that has no guaranteed installed base. They could even think a Wii U version would just eat sales from other version and not bring much additional money

http://m.ign.com/articles/1222590
"Unfortunately, RE6 will not be available at this time on the Wii U," Kobayashi told us. "Right now we're concentrating on the PlayStation 3 version, 360 version and the PC version of the game."

[liolio]

Originally Posted by babybumb

Nintendo seems to have rough time convincing 3rd parties to commit resources to system that has no guaranteed installed base. They could even think a Wii U version would just eat sales from other version and not bring much additional money

http://m.ign.com/articles/1222590
"Unfortunately, RE6 will not be available at this time on the Wii U," Kobayashi told us. "Right now we're concentrating on the PlayStation 3 version, 360 version and the PC version of the game."

That says a lot on the on the late THQ unenthusiastic comments about the WiiU especially as they are interested in finding a platform where darksiders 2 would be a more relevant title.

[Megadrive1988]

Not having RE6 on Wii U is a real shame. I was actually excited for a Wii U rendition of it after watching the new trailer...

[Kb-Smoker]

Originally Posted by Rangers

I think even BF3 is arguable. I've played both the PC and console versions and I dont think the gulf between them is the Grand Canyon.

Dice even slipped up and let out that "PC was the lead at first, but later we moved to console lead" at some point. http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefie...les-after-all/

console 24 players. PC 64 players and huge maps.

I plan to build a pc just for this game.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by babybumb

Nintendo seems to have rough time convincing 3rd parties to commit resources to system that has no guaranteed installed base. They could even think a Wii U version would just eat sales from other version and not bring much additional money

http://m.ign.com/articles/1222590
"Unfortunately, RE6 will not be available at this time on the Wii U," Kobayashi told us. "Right now we're concentrating on the PlayStation 3 version, 360 version and the PC version of the game."

Weirdly, the main reason I'm not keen on Wii U ports is they bring in yet another platform to de-optimize the game.

As of now you can probably just aim at PS3 and 360. So you can to some extent hand optimize for each, leading to better graphics on both. Sure's there's PC version, but that probably has little effect as it's probably just the 360 version, let PC superior power smooth out any rough edges.

Throw in yet a third platform, now you're developing a game across three platforms, I'm afraid games could suffer.

[Iron Tiger]

RE4 later shipped on PS2, then on PC, then on Wii, then on cell phones, then re-launched on PS3 and X360. RE5 got re-packaged with DLC added and the PS3 version gained Move support. RE Chronicles is being re-packaged to "ship" for PS Move. Capcom is not above putting RE out on anything that will run it, so just be patient if you want a Wii U version.

[RudeCurve]

Yeah but people want to play RE6 within the first few months. They don't want to wait a year for a WiiU version. Also people tend to forget that most don't own multiple consoles so the more multiplatform games on a single console the better. Why get a WiiU to play RE6 down the line when I could easily get it for a console I already own ie X360 or PS3? Now if RE7 was exclusive to WiiU then yeah I could see people buying that console just to play that game.

[Shifty Geezer]

Another game not getting a Wuu port:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...oming-to-wii-u

"Nintendo isn't a good platform for developers. The Wii is a toy, not a console."

This isn't a very auspicious starting position for Ninty.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Another game not getting a Wuu port:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...oming-to-wii-u



This isn't a very auspicious starting position for Ninty.

Did you actually read through it? It says absolutely nothing about Wii U, only that Nintendo isn't a good company to deal with based on their last experience, and that Wii, not Wii U, is a toy.

[Shifty Geezer]

I did read it of course, but I revise my response. I though for this to be newsworthy, the game was coming on other consoles. But as it's not appearing on PS360, why assume it'd make it to Wuu? Hence it isn't news. Perhaps a PR dig to get Nintendo to change their ways, but it's not like Wuu is at a disadvantage vs. PS360 on account of no BGEE as I thought. My bad.

[Teasy]

Yeah its not coming out for any consoles, its just an Itunes/Android Market style game. The article should have been titled "Why Trent Oster shouldn't post on twitter drunk" He made himself look like an utter tool with the whole "toy" "attach rate" comments.