Vysez said:
It's just that Epic reps are more diplomatic and have a way better sense of business ethics.
Since when has voicing your opinion, in this case giving some "reservations" concerning the next gen hype about the PS3/360 stomping on the PC, been bad business ethics? 'Business' sense possibly, but not ethics.
JC is a programmer/developer and has concerns about the next gen hardware. He, unlike you are I, is working on the stuff. Unlike MANY bottom feeding devs JC and id is at the top. He has the freedom to speak his mind without much of a backlash. That does not mean he has a lack of business ethics. It means he, in his opinion, thinks something is better (like the PC) or that MS/Sony made a mistake (i.e. multicore too soon). I do not agree necessarily, but there is nothing lacking in him speaking his mind.
Besides the point of JC having the freedome to voice his opinion, Epic being "diplomatic" is a financial one. Epic's engine/middleware is ready NOW. They have over a half dozen devs paying them $1M a pop for their engine. They have no less than 2 games heading to the shelves in 2006 that they need to hype as "the best graphically" because honestly Epic is more known for quality graphics than their gameplay (with a few exceptions). Epic also needs to be more diplomatic because they have been granted favorable status by Sony (e.g. getting the PS3 dev kit early before E3) and MS (MS publishes their games)!!
The fact JC has made negative comments--at possible expense of HIS company--bears more weight than those being diplomatic.
Of course the car salesman who makes a commission on a sale is going to say good thing. It says a lot about someone if they say something negative that can hurt their profits.
JC's anti-climatic comments only brings bad PR to these new consoles. Will that please SCEI and MS management? I guess not.
Who cares if it is bad press for the new consoles IF it is true for him? If the machines suck for what he is doing do you expect him to say, "Well, they are the best machines every... true, they do not fit our games well and they are a complete pain in the butt and are gonna make our dev budget explode and cause more delays, but all in all they are great for id!"
Remember, id is not Epic, EA, Square-Enix, or any of these other huge HUGE dev houses. They are a smaller focused team. The types of teams (not necessarily id recently) that typically turn out neat/unique games. Making development hard for the small guys, like the ids, is a bad thing.
It is all perspective.
If MS and Sony do not like it they can talk to him about it. As other Devs noted, they do not ALWAYS agree with John, but much of the content of his address was accurate.
I am not sure why we are getting upset. If MS and Sony have problems with what he has said they can direct their attention to it. If they really dislike it they can take their dev kits away not not give him permission to publish on their platform.
But overall the man has a right to give his opinion on the subject. And as one of the most important people in the industry I think it is quite bias of us to just dismiss what he is saying. Unlike Anand's "they are complete trash" article, John has both good and bad to say.
His perspective, as a medium sized PC-focused dev with important franchises, is a relevant one. Not the most important or dominant, but still worth while.
Will publishers be interested in id's technology if the first echoes, from the horse's mouth, are negatives? Nope. Well, at least the publishers that didn't already signs huge contracts, spanning on multiple games, with Epic and it's UE3....
Or the reverse.
Devs see how hard it is, and John says, "Yep!! It is hard! We had some of the same issues but worked around them. Our middleware takes the sting out of it, so sign here on the dotted line."
Voicing concerns over design (MS/Sony's multicore CPUs) and tools (Sony) does not mean Devs automatically think, "He is an idiot".
As for the engines, Epic WILL sell more UE3 engines. Why?
#1. JC creates engines to meet the needs of his games. Epic set out to create tools that could be leveraged to third parties.
#2. Epic is bigger and has the explicit goal of creating user friendly tools to enhance UE3 sales. id is smaller and more focused on creating their own games than creating engines for 3rd parties.
Todd Hollenshead should really tell JC to shut up, they're virtually burning bridges with thoses down-to-earth public comments about the new consoles.
What bridges? A fee overzealous fans of consoles? The games will determine what sells, and id's record is stellar.
Also, there is the little thing known as the PC... id seems to sell well there
(D3 did really well on the Xbox though)
If I was Todd, I would not tell John squat. John has been a major force behind id since its beginnings. John's intuition has got them where they are today, I would say in Todd's shoes I would try to understand how John feels and then make the right decision for id--and John being a big part of id, I would take what he says VERY seriously.
id is already in a bad shape for this coming generation, as is.
Say what? Quake 4 has a lot of advertising and hype right now and seems to have more Q3 style MP. Prey looks great and a lot of fun. ET: QuakeWars appears to be on the right track and if it has good gameplay could be a KILLER app.
He also has a retrofit of the engine shaping up for 2006/2007. 3 good games in fall 2005/early fall 2006, a new games in late 2006/2007 (discussed at quakecon 2004) and a revamp/development of his engine... things look good IMO! And less we forget
1. He is primarily a PC dev who ports to the consoles. He may be more interested in WGF 2.0 than the consoles. Nothing wrong with that.
2. The best sales are usually done at the END of a generation when the install base is large. Look at D3 for the Xbox. He took a next gen type game, cut it down some, got it onto the Xbox (which looks great!) and made a TON of cash.
If I had a choice of 50% penetration the 1st year (5M consoles) or 10% penetration in year 5 (50M consoles) I would go with the latter.
UC2 has not done very well on the Xbox.
Doom 3 has done pretty well on the Xbox.
Juding generations from the pre-gen hype is dangerous. Epic looks to be in GREAT shape, but id has 3 or 4 quality/popular franchises coming to the platform plus a new engine. First is not always best.
You call that bad shape. I call that good
He's honest, that's true, and that's great in a certain a sense, but honesty never sold anything.
Honesty is respected. That is why a lot of us really look up to ERP, DeanoC, and guys like John. They all have their bias, hangups, and political connections, but all in all they shoot your straight and you cannot find fault with what they say. The best you can do is say, "I understand your perspective, but in the broad scheme I disagree".
In the end it is about the game. If id makes good next gen games no one is going to care if JC dislikes the PS3 or Xbox 360's CPUs.
