So how does this affect what consumers see? You're still going to have massive studios making games that look great either way. What's compelling them to make a huge investment in new consoles, and vendors to start making a loss again to ship them?
i dont know why this conversation is happening considering both that new consoles are coming out and that "massive studios" have been in a financial spiral since like 2008, with the exception of activision which stagnates on wow and cod money.
Anyone with decent eyes should be able to see quite a difference between my examples sitting on a couch, actually. I can easily spot the blurriness on the small version on my monitor at over a meter away. Blowing it up to a 40 inch screen would look the same at ~5 meters.
And keep in mind that many of these games are developed as crossplatform titles, with the focus being on consoles and then just some higher resolution textures plopped down in the PC version.
Most of these are pretty simple tweaks in the engine, increasing the amount of instanced objects on the screen, since developers (for obvious reasons) don't want to spend inordinate amounts of money to polish the PC version.
But if you look through the forums, and see what some people manage to pump out (one person, in their own time!) then it's quite obvious that there is still plenty of room for hardware improvement. Or how about tiny-group indie games such as Dear Esther (2 artists, 1 coder) or Reset (by Theory Interactive: 2 person total).
And of course there are just so many effect that you can't properly do on consoles yet, such as DoF, tesselation, run things at 60fps, or how about raytracing?
Yes, and I can still pretty much count the triangles on the environment. That's a 16 sided cylinder on the ceiling there between their heads. The latter fewer games have been throwing more and more resources ad characters, but the environment art stays left behind.
I am aware of what you're trying to say. Every generation has reduced impact. I've explained this to many people myself.
8 ,16, 32 sides. You see more difference between 8 and 16 than between 16 and 32. But that doesn't mean you won't see ANY difference between 16 and 32.
And that's what I'm trying to get at. Yes, consoles now are a large step better than those before them, but they're not at the edge of human perception. That's still several console cycles away. We should at least get them as far as to render all their current games at fullHD. For frick's sake, my tablet runs games at 1280x720 natively, and that thing is 50% or so made of battery.
A game isn't just about graphics though. That's what I keep trying to get at. I did throw in some examples of graphics between systems, but the next gen consoles will also allow for more content in the game. As I mentioned in BF3, the PC gets 2 more objectives on most maps. They get more vehicles.
In MAG, they were able to have 256 players in a map. Many people in BF wanted to know why they couldn't have more than 24, if MAG could have 256. The answer: because of hardware limitations. MAG didn't have the same destructible environment, so it wasn't trying to track/render as much. I'd love to see hardware allow for both, a highly destructible environment AND a high player count.
Also, many games have to make things fade away, so that the game doesn't self destruct. For example, if you blow up a wall, the fragments slowly fade out. Or when you kill a player, the body has to fade out as part of 'cleanup'. I think it would be cool if all that stuff kept stacking up. Obviously, current hardware can't do that (nor will the next gen).
"We haven't seen a GTA game since before 3 that has released on the same day as consoles, people just go and buy it on consoles instead of waiting. I'm sure they're intelligent enough to realise that is a significant part of their poor sales on PC"
I got so excited by that second trailer, then seeing that it wasn't coming out for the PC (so far) was like a punch in the gut. I really hope they come around.
"We haven't seen a GTA game since before 3 that has released on the same day as consoles, people just go and buy it on consoles instead of waiting. I'm sure they're intelligent enough to realise that is a significant part of their poor sales on PC"
Which I found to be pretty interesting
That's exactly right. They take away the PC option from a bunch of people that want the game immediately so, in a search for instant gratification, they just buy the console version. PC gaming isn't dying, the games industry is killing it through their own irrational aversion to risk.
It's simple. Don't support the PC as a gaming platform and people don't buy PC games. It's like saying that starving people don't want to eat because they aren't eating. They're not eating because there's no food. People aren't buying PC games because the PC games aren't there when they want them.
"We haven't seen a GTA game since before 3 that has released on the same day as consoles, people just go and buy it on consoles instead of waiting. I'm sure they're intelligent enough to realise that is a significant part of their poor sales on PC"
Which I found to be pretty interesting
I had that exact conversation with a friend who was a programmer for Max Payne 3. While he wouldn't agree one way or the other, he said the pc version was delayed to capture as many legitimate sales through the console versions before opening the pc piracy floodgates.
Thats also a good point, but if people are willing to shell out $60 for it instantly don't you think a good portion of them would have been prepared to buy and preload the content on pc?
You give them more of an excuse to pirate the pc version if you delay it. "I already have the console version so im not buying it twice"
Sure, but the flipside of that is that there are many who WOULD have bought the console version but, fuck it, they'll just pirate the PC version instead and save $60 ...
Sure, but the flipside of that is that there are many who WOULD have bought the console version but, fuck it, they'll just pirate the PC version instead and save $60 ...
That's baseless speculation and a poor reason to shaft the people who would pay for a PC release. It's wrong to fuck over people because you can't stand the idea that someone might get it for free. If that's your attitude, you shouldn't release the game at all because no matter what platform it is, people are going to get it for free if they want it badly enough. Ignore the infringement and focus on giving your paying customers a good reason to open their wallets. It's a waste of time, effort, and money trying to fight the internet; you're never going to win. They have more time and resources to break the DRM than you have to make it unbreakable. And they are getting better at it every day.
Refusing to offer a PC release because of the ominous piracy threat isn't going to help sales either, you're just missing out on an entire market because you're focusing on the people that are not your customers. Just make a PC release and release it the same day as the console releases. That way, you'll capture the maximum number of customers for all platforms. It's the best you can do given the circumstances.
If the industry wants to continue to treat games like a product, they're going to have to accept that it doesn't share the same limitations as a physical product (i.e. copying is inevitable). The industry might have to ditch the publisher patronage model and adopt a crowdfunding patronage model. If you ask for your money up front, it doesn't matter how many people get a copy. Will that mean fewer so-called AAA titles in the future? Perhaps, but far too many of those titles are sequels and "me too!" games with limited substance. It's probably far better to ask the public what they want and experiment than it is to try to satisfy a publisher's desire for broad appeal and maximum sales.
PC games getting pirated is baseless speculation? OK.
No, that's not what I said at all, the reasons you use are speculation. You're assuming that they will pirate it because of X, but that's pure speculation. Of course piracy is happening, but you can only guess as to how or why people make that choice.
Sure, but the flipside of that is that there are many who WOULD have bought the console version but, fuck it, they'll just pirate the PC version instead and save $60 ...
I'm curious, why wouldn't they pirate the console version if they are so set in stone to pirate it anyway? You do know that piracy exists on console too, right?
It all really just boils down to the fact that Take 2 has the data to forecast sales numbers - chances are they can't justify spending the extra money to do a simultaneous release right now.
The idea of having all or the vast majority of console purchases lost to piracy if you (simultaneously) release a PC version is baseless.
For one, you can't pre-order a pirated version. For two, you're often locked out of multiplayer or relegated to shady servers. Three, if games are accessible enough, people will buy them instead of torrent; I used to pirate loads of music, but I haven't downloaded a single illegal file since I got Spotify. As mentioned before: piracy is mostly a service issue.
The idea of having all or the vast majority of console purchases lost to piracy if you (simultaneously) release a PC version is baseless.
For one, you can't pre-order a pirated version. For two, you're often locked out of multiplayer or relegated to shady servers. Three, if games are accessible enough, people will buy them instead of torrent; I used to pirate loads of music, but I haven't downloaded a single illegal file since I got Spotify. As mentioned before: piracy is mostly a service issue.
I agree. It happens because people want a service that they aren't getting. Clearly, people want the convenience of downloading any game at anytime with a single click, without worrying about money. Torrents provide that, but developers aren't making money on that, so they should think about providing that service. It's also a risk issue and heuristic cost. Buying games is honestly a risk for consumers, especially a $60 game of dubious entertainment value. They have to weigh the pros and cons of whether to drop 6 hours worth of their weekly paycheck on a game, when they really want to see if they actually will like the game in the first place.
I agree. It happens because people want a service that they aren't getting. Clearly, people want the convenience of downloading any game at anytime with a single click, without worrying about money. Torrents provide that, but developers aren't making money on that, so they should think about providing that service. It's also a risk issue and heuristic cost. Buying games is honestly a risk for consumers, especially a $60 game of dubious entertainment value. They have to weigh the pros and cons of whether to drop 6 hours worth of their weekly paycheck on a game, when they really want to see if they actually will like the game in the first place.
We need a Spotify for games.
Isn't that....Origin?
*runs aways screaming as the mob chase me* IM SORRRRYYYYYY, I MEANT STEAM!
*runs aways screaming as the mob chase me* IM SORRRRYYYYYY, I MEANT STEAM!
Neither Origin nor Steam is close to what Spotify is. Origin and Steam are just applications which allow you to buy and download games. You just pay a monthly price to use Spotify and then you can listen to all the music they have, you don't have to pay extra to access rock, pop or classic music. You get it all for a monthly price. Imagine if you paid a monthly price of 100$ and you could play all the games they had, online/offline. That is something you could compare to Spotify.
I'm curious, why wouldn't they pirate the console version if they are so set in stone to pirate it anyway? You do know that piracy exists on console too, right?
Yes, thank you, I do know that.
However, PC piracy is far easier (a simple download) and you can't play multiplayer on a modded console or your console will get banned and yadda yadda...
Look I'm not looking to get into this circular argument for the 1,000th time in my life. I was just making an off handed comment. Continue on without me, plz.
*runs aways screaming as the mob chase me* IM SORRRRYYYYYY, I MEANT STEAM!
Perhaps I don't understand exactly how Spotify works, but I was referring to an "all you can eat" buffet of games. The point is to create a games marketplace free from buyer's remorse.
Yeah, what Tekoppar said.
Alternatively, I think it would be beneficial that a game get 100% of its development costs directly from the people that want to play the game. For instance, if it would cost $10 million to make an RPG space sim, the gamers would pony up the cash and the developers would release the completed game, free to download over P2P.
I think this is a good idea because the devs get their salaries paid up front and the gamers get their game. It renders issues like piracy or poor sales (revenue not meeting costs) completely null and it allows the games to be shared, which builds a larger audience of potential customers. It works for music; people who share and download music files are the top spenders in music. They spend more on music because they have access to review more music. It gets you discovered, to put it bluntly.
Will there be free riders in such a system? Yes, but they don't matter because they're still promoting you through sharing and your team doesn't touch a keyboard until your project is fully funded. They don't pay, you don't make the game. It's that simple. Everybody gets what they want. If the devs don't make good on their promise (i.e. they don't finish or they do a terrible job that looks unfinished), they'll likely not get as much support in the future, if any.
Perhaps I don't understand exactly how Spotify works, but I was referring to an "all you can eat" buffet of games. The point is to create a games marketplace free from buyer's remorse.
Yeah, what Tekoppar said.
Alternatively, I think it would be beneficial that a game get 100% of its development costs directly from the people that want to play the game. For instance, if it would cost $10 million to make an RPG space sim, the gamers would pony up the cash and the developers would release the completed game, free to download over P2P.
I think this is a good idea because the devs get their salaries paid up front and the gamers get their game. It renders issues like piracy or poor sales (revenue not meeting costs) completely null and it allows the games to be shared, which builds a larger audience of potential customers. It works for music; people who share and download music files are the top spenders in music. They spend more on music because they have access to review more music. It gets you discovered, to put it bluntly.
Will there be free riders in such a system? Yes, but they don't matter because they're still promoting you through sharing and your team doesn't touch a keyboard until your project is fully funded. They don't pay, you don't make the game. It's that simple. Everybody gets what they want. If the devs don't make good on their promise (i.e. they don't finish or they do a terrible job that looks unfinished), they'll likely not get as much support in the future, if any.
I agree completely. We should move to a model where we're paying developers to work on games for us, rather than paying for the games themselves. Kickstarter, Indie GoGo, etc are a great start, but most people are still treating them as pre-orders for a product.
Unfortunately, there are still too many people who seem to think content is magically generated by elves, who I'm sure would just think they're paying for ivory backscratchers for some C.E.O. There would have to be a LOT of transparency about where the money is going and how the game is progressing. Maybe even have a cancel anytime sort of subscription, pay the developers 5 bucks a month, if you feel like your money is being wasted, then stop paying.
There would have to be a LOT of transparency about where the money is going and how the game is progressing.
That would be part of how to encourage people to pitch in, offer them transparency into the development of the game they are funding. For example, they could sell alpha access so that people could see the game progress through each milestone. Private beta access could be offered. A forum just for funders to get privileged updates and news about the game. Periodic develepor "fire-side" chats so people can get to know the people making their games.
Simply, sell tiers of access to peer into the project and its progress. It builds greater attachment to the game and makes them feel they are part of the project.
That "game spotify" plan didn't go too well for GameTap. GameTap was this, had bad billing practices, and then was sold and horribly neutered since 2008 (dropping the Gametap client for a web interface after being sold to some french web company). It was unfortunate, because it had a few timed successfully launched exclusives (Sam & Max Ep. 1 anybody?), and most importantly (to me), online multiplayer Vampire Savior!
Replies
And keep in mind that many of these games are developed as crossplatform titles, with the focus being on consoles and then just some higher resolution textures plopped down in the PC version.
Here are some other comparisons, with some more noticable differences:
vegetation density
vegetation + texture crispness
[ame="
[ame="
Most of these are pretty simple tweaks in the engine, increasing the amount of instanced objects on the screen, since developers (for obvious reasons) don't want to spend inordinate amounts of money to polish the PC version.
But if you look through the forums, and see what some people manage to pump out (one person, in their own time!) then it's quite obvious that there is still plenty of room for hardware improvement. Or how about tiny-group indie games such as Dear Esther (2 artists, 1 coder) or Reset (by Theory Interactive: 2 person total).
And of course there are just so many effect that you can't properly do on consoles yet, such as DoF, tesselation, run things at 60fps, or how about raytracing?
There is PLENTY of room for advancements.
I am aware of what you're trying to say. Every generation has reduced impact. I've explained this to many people myself.
8 ,16, 32 sides. You see more difference between 8 and 16 than between 16 and 32. But that doesn't mean you won't see ANY difference between 16 and 32.
And that's what I'm trying to get at. Yes, consoles now are a large step better than those before them, but they're not at the edge of human perception. That's still several console cycles away. We should at least get them as far as to render all their current games at fullHD. For frick's sake, my tablet runs games at 1280x720 natively, and that thing is 50% or so made of battery.
In MAG, they were able to have 256 players in a map. Many people in BF wanted to know why they couldn't have more than 24, if MAG could have 256. The answer: because of hardware limitations. MAG didn't have the same destructible environment, so it wasn't trying to track/render as much. I'd love to see hardware allow for both, a highly destructible environment AND a high player count.
Also, many games have to make things fade away, so that the game doesn't self destruct. For example, if you blow up a wall, the fragments slowly fade out. Or when you kill a player, the body has to fade out as part of 'cleanup'. I think it would be cool if all that stuff kept stacking up. Obviously, current hardware can't do that (nor will the next gen).
"We haven't seen a GTA game since before 3 that has released on the same day as consoles, people just go and buy it on consoles instead of waiting. I'm sure they're intelligent enough to realise that is a significant part of their poor sales on PC"
Which I found to be pretty interesting
That's exactly right. They take away the PC option from a bunch of people that want the game immediately so, in a search for instant gratification, they just buy the console version. PC gaming isn't dying, the games industry is killing it through their own irrational aversion to risk.
It's simple. Don't support the PC as a gaming platform and people don't buy PC games. It's like saying that starving people don't want to eat because they aren't eating. They're not eating because there's no food. People aren't buying PC games because the PC games aren't there when they want them.
If you build it, they will come.:poly142:
I had that exact conversation with a friend who was a programmer for Max Payne 3. While he wouldn't agree one way or the other, he said the pc version was delayed to capture as many legitimate sales through the console versions before opening the pc piracy floodgates.
You give them more of an excuse to pirate the pc version if you delay it. "I already have the console version so im not buying it twice"
That's baseless speculation and a poor reason to shaft the people who would pay for a PC release. It's wrong to fuck over people because you can't stand the idea that someone might get it for free. If that's your attitude, you shouldn't release the game at all because no matter what platform it is, people are going to get it for free if they want it badly enough. Ignore the infringement and focus on giving your paying customers a good reason to open their wallets. It's a waste of time, effort, and money trying to fight the internet; you're never going to win. They have more time and resources to break the DRM than you have to make it unbreakable. And they are getting better at it every day.
Refusing to offer a PC release because of the ominous piracy threat isn't going to help sales either, you're just missing out on an entire market because you're focusing on the people that are not your customers. Just make a PC release and release it the same day as the console releases. That way, you'll capture the maximum number of customers for all platforms. It's the best you can do given the circumstances.
If the industry wants to continue to treat games like a product, they're going to have to accept that it doesn't share the same limitations as a physical product (i.e. copying is inevitable). The industry might have to ditch the publisher patronage model and adopt a crowdfunding patronage model. If you ask for your money up front, it doesn't matter how many people get a copy. Will that mean fewer so-called AAA titles in the future? Perhaps, but far too many of those titles are sequels and "me too!" games with limited substance. It's probably far better to ask the public what they want and experiment than it is to try to satisfy a publisher's desire for broad appeal and maximum sales.
No, that's not what I said at all, the reasons you use are speculation. You're assuming that they will pirate it because of X, but that's pure speculation. Of course piracy is happening, but you can only guess as to how or why people make that choice.
I'm curious, why wouldn't they pirate the console version if they are so set in stone to pirate it anyway? You do know that piracy exists on console too, right?
For one, you can't pre-order a pirated version. For two, you're often locked out of multiplayer or relegated to shady servers. Three, if games are accessible enough, people will buy them instead of torrent; I used to pirate loads of music, but I haven't downloaded a single illegal file since I got Spotify. As mentioned before: piracy is mostly a service issue.
I agree. It happens because people want a service that they aren't getting. Clearly, people want the convenience of downloading any game at anytime with a single click, without worrying about money. Torrents provide that, but developers aren't making money on that, so they should think about providing that service. It's also a risk issue and heuristic cost. Buying games is honestly a risk for consumers, especially a $60 game of dubious entertainment value. They have to weigh the pros and cons of whether to drop 6 hours worth of their weekly paycheck on a game, when they really want to see if they actually will like the game in the first place.
We need a Spotify for games.
Isn't that....Origin?
*runs aways screaming as the mob chase me* IM SORRRRYYYYYY, I MEANT STEAM!
Neither Origin nor Steam is close to what Spotify is. Origin and Steam are just applications which allow you to buy and download games. You just pay a monthly price to use Spotify and then you can listen to all the music they have, you don't have to pay extra to access rock, pop or classic music. You get it all for a monthly price. Imagine if you paid a monthly price of 100$ and you could play all the games they had, online/offline. That is something you could compare to Spotify.
However, PC piracy is far easier (a simple download) and you can't play multiplayer on a modded console or your console will get banned and yadda yadda...
Look I'm not looking to get into this circular argument for the 1,000th time in my life. I was just making an off handed comment. Continue on without me, plz.
Perhaps I don't understand exactly how Spotify works, but I was referring to an "all you can eat" buffet of games. The point is to create a games marketplace free from buyer's remorse.
Yeah, what Tekoppar said.
Alternatively, I think it would be beneficial that a game get 100% of its development costs directly from the people that want to play the game. For instance, if it would cost $10 million to make an RPG space sim, the gamers would pony up the cash and the developers would release the completed game, free to download over P2P.
I think this is a good idea because the devs get their salaries paid up front and the gamers get their game. It renders issues like piracy or poor sales (revenue not meeting costs) completely null and it allows the games to be shared, which builds a larger audience of potential customers. It works for music; people who share and download music files are the top spenders in music. They spend more on music because they have access to review more music. It gets you discovered, to put it bluntly.
Will there be free riders in such a system? Yes, but they don't matter because they're still promoting you through sharing and your team doesn't touch a keyboard until your project is fully funded. They don't pay, you don't make the game. It's that simple. Everybody gets what they want. If the devs don't make good on their promise (i.e. they don't finish or they do a terrible job that looks unfinished), they'll likely not get as much support in the future, if any.
I agree completely. We should move to a model where we're paying developers to work on games for us, rather than paying for the games themselves. Kickstarter, Indie GoGo, etc are a great start, but most people are still treating them as pre-orders for a product.
Unfortunately, there are still too many people who seem to think content is magically generated by elves, who I'm sure would just think they're paying for ivory backscratchers for some C.E.O. There would have to be a LOT of transparency about where the money is going and how the game is progressing. Maybe even have a cancel anytime sort of subscription, pay the developers 5 bucks a month, if you feel like your money is being wasted, then stop paying.
That would be part of how to encourage people to pitch in, offer them transparency into the development of the game they are funding. For example, they could sell alpha access so that people could see the game progress through each milestone. Private beta access could be offered. A forum just for funders to get privileged updates and news about the game. Periodic develepor "fire-side" chats so people can get to know the people making their games.
Simply, sell tiers of access to peer into the project and its progress. It builds greater attachment to the game and makes them feel they are part of the project.
Project Cars is going this route, but I haven't heard much from them:
http://www.wmdportal.com/projects/cars/