bit-gamer.net

Epic: "PC piracy drove us to consoles"

Epic: "PC piracy drove us to consoles"

Epic president Mike Capps said that the piracy on the PC forced the company on to new platforms.

Epic Games president Mike Capps has commented that the company deliberately transformed itself from a PC developer into a console-focused company in reaction to piracy on the PC platform.

Speaking to Edge magazine, Capps said that piracy was a big problem for PC developers.

"If you walked into [Epic's Offices] six years ago, Epic was a PC company," said Capps.

We did one PS2 launch title, and everything else was PC. And now, people are saying ‘why do you hate the PC? You're a console-only company’. It's because the money's on consoles.

We still do PC, we still love the PC, but we already saw the impact of piracy: it killed a lot of great independent developers and completely changed our business model.”

Capps comments echo the concerns of other prominent PC developers who have started moving to consoles, most notable Crytek.

That said, the confession does contradict some of Epic's previous statements about its direction and products, not to mention its membership in the PC Gaming Alliance.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

146 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Stelph 19th May 2010, 11:56 Quote
Epic, piracy and consoles mentioned in one news post?

"braces for eruption in the comments section"
general22 19th May 2010, 12:01 Quote
Fair comments regarding their move away from the PC platform but still pretending they love the PC is a bit rich.
Sifter3000 19th May 2010, 12:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stelph
Epic, piracy and consoles mentioned in one news post?

"braces for eruption in the comments section"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2279/2458347953_c26f090cbe.jpg?v=0
NuTech 19th May 2010, 12:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
Fair comments regarding their move away from the PC platform but still pretending they love the PC is a bit rich.
Think you just summed it up perfectly.
Omnituens 19th May 2010, 12:13 Quote
Are they still part of the PCGA? If so, that's a crock of bull. Kick them out.
BlackMage23 19th May 2010, 12:16 Quote
Well lets face it, games on the console have a much higher price then the pc market and with less people to complain about the prices.
[USRF]Obiwan 19th May 2010, 12:17 Quote
EpicFail...
Unknownsock 19th May 2010, 12:23 Quote
Fair enough, but atleast port us the games we are missing!

Companies should be more like Bioware imo, in the sense that they still have very well designed games that work well on all platforms. Not crappy ports for the console or PC.
Can't say Epic have done any decent games recently anyway...
bbshammo 19th May 2010, 12:27 Quote
It's funny that Epic are still trying to make excuses for failing at PC games supply. lol
NuTech 19th May 2010, 12:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Well lets face it, games on the console have a much higher price then the pc market and with less people to complain about the prices.
The retail price has almost nothing to do with it. Generally the money received by the developer/publisher ends up being the same regardless of what platform you bought the game on.

The bulk of the difference on retail price is down to the console manufacturer's cut, they receive about $10 per copy sold.

If anything, publishers like Ubisoft are starting to make more profit-per-game from PC sales compared to console. They've hiked the price to nearly match the console version, but instead of giving a cut to Sony/Microsoft, they pocket it.

Have a read of this.
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 12:47 Quote
I imagine it would cost more developing for PC as you have to design something that can run on multiple different hardware configurations and specification levels and then supply technical support to the product long after its release, whereas with consoles you have less of these sorts of issues. Though i don't know much about the inner workings of the industry so I could be wrong.
Baz 19th May 2010, 12:47 Quote
Valve sitting on its giant pile of money. Sure there's no money in PC gaming...
msm722 19th May 2010, 12:57 Quote
The only people who are pirating PC games are those who have no money and like single player. Everyone else buys.
Hustler 19th May 2010, 12:58 Quote
This is a load of crap.....

Epic games were basically MP only, which you needed a genuine CD key to be able to play.....

The percentage of cracked servers was and still is tiny.......
Cerberus90 19th May 2010, 12:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
I imagine it would cost more developing for PC as you have to design something that can run on multiple different hardware configurations and specification levels and then supply technical support to the product long after its release, whereas with consoles you have less of these sorts of issues. Though i don't know much about the inner workings of the industry so I could be wrong.

Spot on.

Testing for PC Games must take ages longer than for consoles.
Its proven that its harder to develop for PC than console in that PC games will almost always have patches, whereas you never really hear about console games having lots of bugs and requiring constant patching.

IMO, something needs to be done, to sort of standardise the PC gaming market. Something like DirectX, the hardware a user is using shouldn't really come into how the game is programmed. Apart from obvious things like 32bit and 64bit, and probably mutli-threading.
But with graphics cards, it shouldn't matter whether the user is red or green, IMO, directX should have taken care of this, but then that would mean companies working together, which I can't see happening any time soon.

Don't get me wrong though, I love PC gaming, I only have an Xbox for Forza 3, that's the only game I really play on it, gaming on a PC just seems to give you more freedom, and has more potential for making a game really good. Also, PC Games seem to age better, get a game out for the PS2, and it'll look awful, get Half Life on the PC out, and it doesn't look too bad.
Tanacel 19th May 2010, 13:07 Quote
Piracy and no one buying the rather awful unreal series after the original unreal and unreal tournament.

And why companies still complain about pc piracy when the Steam model for piracy seems to work exceptionally well. It doesn't appear to be rocket science?
stonedsurd 19th May 2010, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90
Testing for PC Games must take ages longer than for consoles.

Not really. It does take longer, but not by enough to have companies abandon the platform altogether, or to bitch about it as much as Epic seems to be doing.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 13:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Valve sitting on its giant pile of money. Sure there's no money in PC gaming...
Come on now, that's a BS arguement you know it.

If we were to ever see Value's bookkeeping I would bet everything I own that the majority of their money comes from selling third party games, not their own.

If anything, I would argue that Valve only develop games as a means to an end. They just want as many people as possible to install Steam. Take TF2 for example, that game alone has probably lost Valve a fortune. Nobody in their right mind would release 120 free updates for a game with no ongoing fees or expansion packs.

You can't say to developers "Hey want to make money? Create a fantastic distribution service and sell other people's games", eventually somebody has to actually make those games.
kingred 19th May 2010, 13:13 Quote
Nah they need to concentrate on Gears of Bore 349593.
badders 19th May 2010, 13:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Valve sitting on its giant pile of money. Sure there's no money in PC gaming...

Heh, I'm now imagining Gabe swimming through his vault like Scrooge McDuck.
blood69 19th May 2010, 13:16 Quote
I don't blame them at all, but its sad that many developers around the globe are making games "Just for Consoles". I admit that i played many games made for consoles then ported to PC and sucked real bad like Test Drive Unlimited.
The type of games that are having a bad time to go Just for Consoles are FPS and Simulators. In the case of FPS, unless they create an input device that we don't need a table to support it and it is better than a Keyboard and a Mouse together i don't believe Hardcore players will ever play FPS in a console.
The opposite also applies, i am playing old Dreamcast games on my PC and i couldn't play well using the keyboard, i had to buy a 360 PC controller and the experience is so good that i forget that i'm playing in a PC.
For me the console games should be Simple, Original and Fun. In the PC i fancy more Car Simulators and FPS or 3rdPS games.
I've been playing a game using Dreamcast emulator, the "Tokyo Higway Challenge 2" and i could connect my G25 but i prefer to use the 360 GamePad, and why is that, its a car game so why a Race petrol head like me prefer to use the 360Pad than the G25 wheel?? It's simple, the game is so arcade, the Physics is so stupit but, it's so addictive and Fun doing those Battles on the Highway that i don't even bother using the Wheel.
scawp 19th May 2010, 13:20 Quote
PC gamers and Console gamers are quite different. PC gamers aren't going to buy the same diluted 'better graphic' same bullsh1t story FPS they have been trying to flog us since unreal, we'll just leave it on the shelf. Where as most of the console gamers I know will buy any game and think its awesome (P.S how crap was assassin creed 2? I mean come on do we need 3 hour of tutorials? anyway not the point I'm trying to make).

Tip to epic, bring out better PC games and we will buy them.
jrs77 19th May 2010, 13:25 Quote
The piracy-argument is the lamest argument a company can make tbh, as a pirated copy is a copy that wouldn't have been sold in the first place.

If you look at the facts, then piracy has not lowered the income of any media-company (music / cinematic / games) in the last 15 years. It's a steadily increasing curve.

Additionally... even consoles can get pirated, if you don't play online, and games that require you to connect to a server can't be pirated on a PC either.

So the only reason for a move to consoles is, that it's easier to develop games for consoles.
Fabou 19th May 2010, 13:32 Quote
They are right money is on consol. For example COD 6: 2 DLC 15€ each and nobody is complaining on console. Whereas for the same game PC gamer complain for the lack of dedicaced server.
I think that as long as rich idiot will play on console convinced they have the best, develloper will make crappy game for them.
NikoBellic 19th May 2010, 13:44 Quote
Fact is, devs can't develop quality games anymore, so they just blame piracy for poor sales when the truth is that PC gamers have higher standards and look at every detail, afterall its second nature for PC gamers to look at every last detail when you have the ability to tweak so many things on the PC (unless you don't like to see what changes the settings make...)
Cerberus90 19th May 2010, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedsurd
Not really. It does take longer, but not by enough to have companies abandon the platform altogether, or to bitch about it as much as Epic seems to be doing.

yeah, if your a true PC enthusiast its worth the extra testing to have a far superior product.

And it would seem most companies *cough* EA *cough* don't bother testing, BF2 being a case in point, :D


Thinking about this a bit more, you'd have thought that developers would get more money from PC games. As console games, the console manufacturer takes a cut don't they?
This obviously doesn't happen with PC games. But then, PC games are cheaper aren't they, so thats why it comes out to about the same profit per game, (just remembered somebody said this earlier in the thread, :o)

@NikoBellic

I know what you mean, but IMO its getting harder and harder to create world changing games because alot of it has been done before. When PC gaming took off, it was much easier to create an absolutely mind blowing game as it probably hadn't been done before, and technology was developing a lot faster then.
But we now seemed to have reached a point where its getting harder and harder to get any new features on the techno side. And its getting harder and harder to think of new games.
Brilliant Case is Bad Company 2. Just installed that yesterday, started playing the single player, and instantly thought, hang on, have I got the right disc in, this looks just like COD4. :D
theflatworm 19th May 2010, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
The piracy-argument is the lamest argument a company can make tbh, as a pirated copy is a copy that wouldn't have been sold in the first place.

If you look at the facts, then piracy has not lowered the income of any media-company (music / cinematic / games) in the last 15 years. It's a steadily increasing curve.

Additionally... even consoles can get pirated, if you don't play online, and games that require you to connect to a server can't be pirated on a PC either.

So the only reason for a move to consoles is, that it's easier to develop games for consoles.


Right. IMO, most people care more about convenience than anything else. People will pay vast amounts extra to own a car, for example, rather than walk or go by public transport. The reason steam does so well is because it's so simple! Just a couple of clicks and bob's your gaming uncle. On the flip side, you can spend weeks trying to get a torrent to download, only to find the game inside doesn't actually work. Any game I really want -- as long as it's on steam! -- I will download basically as soon as it comes out, and am willing to pay the market price for it. If I were the sort of person who download torrents, it would be because I didn't care enough about the game to buy it in the first place.

I am willing to admit to downloading abandonware, though, as that's a genuinely victimless crime (unless you count the revenue lost from me playing old games instead of new, and since I buy every decent looking new game that comes out on steam, I don't think I really owe companies more new game revenue). There's a difference between acting as an ethical consumer and following all the rules to the letter...
bowman 19th May 2010, 13:53 Quote
Gears of War drove me to decent games. Epic hasn't made a decent game since UT 2004. Get lost, dudes. We know you're too lazy to make quality games and that the only people who will actually buy the crap you put out nowadays are console gamers.
Kylevdm 19th May 2010, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90

yeah, if your a true PC enthusiast its worth the extra testing to have a far superior product.

And it would seem most companies *cough* EA *cough* don't bother testing, BF2 being a case in point, :D

and BC2... but the community have taken over BF2 with the new patch and that is what makes PC gaming! I had a 360 for a few weeks last year and I got sick of not only the stupid control pad while trying to shoot someone but the lack of community, I want vent and teamspeak. Dedicated servers and clans that is what makes most games for me now! After playing through the horrible first week of BC2 I can safely say that yes PC games are going to be buggy and yes they do take time and about 3 billion patches to get right but I will NEVER move to a console ever again!

Oh, and valve do not have to make any money on their games... they are still awesome in EVERY way. Steam runs like a subscription model for them giving them cash to spend on epic games made by the best developers in the world :)
mastorofpuppetz 19th May 2010, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
The piracy-argument is the lamest argument a company can make tbh, as a pirated copy is a copy that wouldn't have been sold in the first place.

If you look at the facts, then piracy has not lowered the income of any media-company (music / cinematic / games) in the last 15 years. It's a steadily increasing curve.

Additionally... even consoles can get pirated, if you don't play online, and games that require you to connect to a server can't be pirated on a PC either.

So the only reason for a move to consoles is, that it's easier to develop games for consoles.

This argument is a load of BS, Yes, not near everyone who pirates would buy, but i can guarantee if piracy was not an option many would buy the game if they had no other option, you expect everyone would just quit gaming, even games they really like if they could not pirate? BS.

As for developing on PC, it is NOT TRUE it is more expensive, any independant small studio starts off on PC why? It is open, and free for anyone to develop on it.

It took a company like GSC gameworld (Stalker) years before becoming a certified console dev which entails a large financial investment just to get a dev kit.
devdevil85 19th May 2010, 14:16 Quote
Piracy is just as rampant on 360 as it is on PC, check the torrents!
Fizzban 19th May 2010, 14:28 Quote
Piracy has had an impact but I don't think its had the kind of impact that gaming company's like to complain about. For the most part people only pirate a game they would never have spent money on in the first place.

The number of actual sales they lose is minimal. You can see they are now blaming the 2nd hand games market for lost sales. It's pathetic. It is an excuse so they can continue to produce below par games on consoles because its cheaper. A lot of console owners just don't know any better and lap it up. PC users know better.

I think the basic problem is games are costing more to make, but still sell for the same price they did ten years ago. They dare not risk putting up prices and losing customers. So we have the whole 'make naffer games for consoles and make piss poor DLC to make up the extra profits' thing going on. Piracy to me is just an extra excuse they use, to try to justify their actions.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 14:36 Quote
I really don't understand why people get so angry at developers who denounce the PC platform.

Honest question to all of you: Do you think these guys have some sort of unsubstantiated vendetta against the PC? That they go home each night and think of ways to screw PC gamers over?

It's business folks. If you used to sell a huge amount of copies on one platform, than that number started steadily eroding, wouldn't you switch to a platform that has increasing numbers?

A little while ago I was lucky enough to go for a drink with a couple lead designers for a major UK games studio (the company I work for is owned by the same conglomerate as theirs). When these guys can talk openly (without fear of their words getting published), it's crazy some of the things you learn. Like what the numbers are exactly or which platform manufacturer they receive the most support from. You end up concluding one thing: be glad you're not a game developer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Piracy is just as rampant on 360 as it is on PC, check the torrents!
Xbox piracy does exist, but if you think it's just as rampant then you're crazy. 'Hacked' Xbox's make up a small minority, a dip in the ocean compared to PC.
Pete J 19th May 2010, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Piracy is just as rampant on 360 as it is on PC
That's exactly what I've heard/read.

[RANT]Bloody console-tards ruining our precious PC gaming! I have a friend who owns a PS3 and he told me that he couldn't see the difference between the PS3 and games I play on PC! Suffice to say I was not amused.[/RANT]
Unicorn 19th May 2010, 14:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stelph
Epic, piracy and consoles mentioned in one news post?

"braces for eruption in the comments section"
Quote:

You just won the thread Alex ;)

I dunno about this... on one hand, I can see where they are coming from, and on the other, I feel like a company moving to favour consoles over the PC platform (IW, I'm looking scowling @ u guise ) over piracy is just another excuse to make more money. Look at what EA did about piracy, look at what Valve did about piracy. At the end of the discussion, I really think it's just about money. It would probably have cost Epic more money to write good piracy protection software than it did to hire the programmers and writers who were able to bring them a bigger share of the console market.
borandi 19th May 2010, 14:44 Quote
Didn't EA just say that console pre-owned sales are crippling their business model, hence they're charging a tenner to be able to access online servers on your pre-owned game.
ripmax 19th May 2010, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Piracy has had an impact but I don't think its had the kind of impact that gaming company's like to complain about. For the most part people only pirate a game they would never have spent money on in the first place.

The number of actual sales they lose is minimal. You can see they are now blaming the 2nd hand games market for lost sales. It's pathetic. It is an excuse so they can continue to produce below par games on consoles because its cheaper. A lot of console owners just don't know any better and lap it up. PC users know better.

I think the basic problem is games are costing more to make, but still sell for the same price they did ten years ago. They dare not risk putting up prices and losing customers. So we have the whole 'make naffer games for consoles and make piss poor DLC to make up the extra profits' thing going on. Piracy to me is just an extra excuse they use, to try to justify their actions.

I don't think the price being too low is an issue. Valve does fine selling their games cheap, they are making lots of money. Look at tf2, they constantly update it and they have even sold it a couple of times for next to nothing.
PureSilver 19th May 2010, 14:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Fair enough, but atleast port us the games we are missing!

This ^. Rake in the cash on the console version, and do a PC release later when you've had time and money to test it properly. We'll wait, the PC version's always more advanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
This argument is a load of BS, Yes, not near everyone who pirates would buy, but i can guarantee if piracy was not an option many would buy the game if they had no other option, you expect everyone would just quit gaming, even games they really like if they could not pirate? BS.

Also this ^. I guarantee that if people were as likely to get away with shoplifting as they are with download piracy, theft of every medium would skyrocket. People like free stuff, but when it's not free they don't just give whatever it is up. People want to play games. If they can get them free - and they are a 13-year-old 1337-artist who thinks torrenting is 4w35uMm!!!1 - then they might well pirate them. If they couldn't, they might only buy one game a month instead of pirating four, but that's still one sale that's not being made at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borandi
Didn't EA just say that console pre-owned sales are crippling their business model, hence they're charging a tenner to be able to access online servers on your pre-owned game.

EA made a billion dollar loss in 2008, despite a 15% rise in turnover, and plan to fire 1500 people. They're grasping at straws here.
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by borandi
Didn't EA just say that console pre-owned sales are crippling their business model, hence they're charging a tenner to be able to access online servers on your pre-owned game.

The companies are just all talking BS to make sure they can make more money.

The reasons they complain about piracy is because it's a good excuse for them to make.

By going console only, they can cheap out like they never could on the PC, they''re saving money in development costs as their games on consoles don't have to be anywhere near as polished before they're criticised for "lazy work".

Thing is, Epic are genuinely just making excuses now, think about just how much money they're realistically making? UE3 is the most commonly used third party engine, they're making a load of money just on licensing that, so they're now being lazy.

They probably think their PC work is "done" with them finishing the UE3 for PC.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
By going console only, they can cheap out like they never could on the PC, they''re saving money in development costs as their games on consoles don't have to be anywhere near as polished before they're criticised for "lazy work".
That made me laugh.

Yes, all those console only games are so cheap to make....
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripmax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Piracy has had an impact but I don't think its had the kind of impact that gaming company's like to complain about. For the most part people only pirate a game they would never have spent money on in the first place.

The number of actual sales they lose is minimal. You can see they are now blaming the 2nd hand games market for lost sales. It's pathetic. It is an excuse so they can continue to produce below par games on consoles because its cheaper. A lot of console owners just don't know any better and lap it up. PC users know better.

I think the basic problem is games are costing more to make, but still sell for the same price they did ten years ago. They dare not risk putting up prices and losing customers. So we have the whole 'make naffer games for consoles and make piss poor DLC to make up the extra profits' thing going on. Piracy to me is just an extra excuse they use, to try to justify their actions.

I don't think the price being too low is an issue. Valve does fine selling their games cheap, they are making lots of money. Look at tf2, they constantly update it and they have even sold it a couple of times for next to nothing.

They keep the updates going because it holds customers, this is something valve knows well, keep the current customers happy, set a standard of customer service, and they'll keep coming back.

Something people have a hard time understand as well is that when they have games on sale, the increase in sales isn't linear to the percentage of the discount, it's usually far far far higher.

They usually see multiple thousands of percent increases in sales when they discount their games.

That means they've made more money selling a game for £5 (at 75% off for example) than they have at £20, simply because they've sold 100,000 copies at £5 compared to say 5,000 copies at £20 (not true figures obviously, but it seems to work something like this).

With the constant updates, they're keeping their games fresh and making the games more desirable to new comers as the current players are more likely to tell their friends to grab a copy when it's 75% off.
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
By going console only, they can cheap out like they never could on the PC, they''re saving money in development costs as their games on consoles don't have to be anywhere near as polished before they're criticised for "lazy work".
That made me laugh.

Yes, all those console only games are so cheap to make....

Could you point out where I said console games are cheap to make, please? As I don't recall saying it.
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 15:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J

[RANT]Bloody console-tards ruining our precious PC gaming! I have a friend who owns a PS3 and he told me that he couldn't see the difference between the PS3 and games I play on PC! Suffice to say I was not amused.[/RANT]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
By going console only, they can cheap out like they never could on the PC, they''re saving money in development costs as their games on consoles don't have to be anywhere near as polished before they're criticised for "lazy work".

I really wish people would stop using the 'all console gamers are idiots and they are responsible for the decline of quality PC games' argument - it's getting old and you look stupid for using it.
Do you honestly believe that game critics go softer on a game because it's console only? Or that the vast majority of console owners are some sort of idiot who can't recognise a good game?
I've been a PC gamer all my life but I own both a PS3 and a 360, and before that I've owned a PS2 and a PSX. There are some experiences that you just cannot have on a PC.
The implication that I am some sort of idiot or ignorant in some way because I buy console games is a gross misjudgement.
Veles 19th May 2010, 15:38 Quote
Do they really need to tell us this AGAIN?
rtrski 19th May 2010, 15:38 Quote
Is this where the phrase "Epic fail" originated?

Seriously though, money is in consoles, PC is smaller market, we get it. But the piracy excuse is just that, an excuse. Doesn't seem to make DVD releases go away and all after-theatre movie distribution move solely into captive, streaming channels (pay per view, Hulu, Netflix, what-have-you), and DVDs are WAY easier to pirate for even tech illiterates than games.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
They keep the updates going because it holds customers, this is something valve knows well, keep the current customers happy, set a standard of customer service, and they'll keep coming back.

Something people have a hard time understand as well is that when they have games on sale, the increase in sales isn't linear to the percentage of the discount, it's usually far far far higher.

They usually see multiple thousands of percent increases in sales when they discount their games.

That means they've made more money selling a game for £5 (at 75% off for example) than they have at £20, simply because they've sold 100,000 copies at £5 compared to say 5,000 copies at £20 (not true figures obviously, but it seems to work something like this).

With the constant updates, they're keeping their games fresh and making the games more desirable to new comers as the current players are more likely to tell their friends to grab a copy when it's 75% off.
TF2, as a sole entity, loses money. If it was as simple as your napkin maths, then every developer would be doing the same thing.

Valve make the vast majority of their money from Steam, i.e other people's games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Could you point out where I said console games are cheap to make, please? As I don't recall saying it.
You said developers avoided PC development so that they could 'cheap out', be 'lazy' and 'unpolished' - if that doesn't imply cheapness that I don't know what does. Those statements couldn't be any further from the truth but makes for a nice and tidy arguement so you can somehow feel better about the situation.

There are numerous great multi-platform PC AAA titles (Batman:AA, Just Cause 2, Dirt 2) that would not exist if it wasn't for their console counterparts acting as a guarantee that they'll make their money back and I bet you've probably played and enjoyed some of them.

If the PC platform made as much (or more) money as consoles, don't you think there would be more games? These developers/publishers don't hate you. They just want to make money, like every other business does.
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J

[RANT]Bloody console-tards ruining our precious PC gaming! I have a friend who owns a PS3 and he told me that he couldn't see the difference between the PS3 and games I play on PC! Suffice to say I was not amused.[/RANT]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
By going console only, they can cheap out like they never could on the PC, they''re saving money in development costs as their games on consoles don't have to be anywhere near as polished before they're criticised for "lazy work".

I really wish people would stop using the 'all console gamers are idiots and they are responsible for the decline of quality PC games' argument - it's getting old and you look stupid for using it.
Do you honestly believe that game critics go softer on a game because it's console only? Or that the vast majority of console owners are some sort of idiot who can't recognise a good game?
I've been a PC gamer all my life but I own both a PS3 and a 360, and before that I've owned a PS2 and a PSX. There are some experiences that you just cannot have on a PC.
The implication that I am some sort of idiot or ignorant in some way because I buy console games is a gross misjudgement.


Well you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Of course they go softer on a console game when comparing it to a PC game, which is what I was saying. Consoles have lesser hardware in them, but I didn't once say console owners are responsible for the decline of good PC games, I'm a consoler owner my self and I don't understand where you got idiot from?

Compare the same game on PC to the console version and you'll soon understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Some one criticising a console game wouldn't realistically slate a game for a lack of AA because it's not exactly a standard thing on consoles, despite them being capable of doing it to some extent.

Where as the PC version would get slated for having no AA options.

See what I mean now?

It's to be expected that the vast majority of console owners aren't particularly technically inclined simply because of the sheer number of console owners, but I did not once say they're idiots, and secondly, since when has the absence of knowledge been evidence for stupidity or idiocy?

So yeah, I've owned most consoles out and currently have a PS3 and a Wii, I prefer my PC for games, but that means nothing.

But it's FACT that a console has lesser hardware and therefore can be done to a lower standard, why do you think so many games are rendered at low resolutions and then upscaled? Because the hardware isn't powerful enough to render it at high resolutions.

You'd be a fool to expect PC quality graphics on a current gen console, at PC monitor resolutions.
memeroot 19th May 2010, 15:49 Quote
"I guarantee that if people were as likely to get away with shoplifting as they are with download piracy, theft of every medium would skyrocket. "

this /\
steveo_mcg 19th May 2010, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
TF2, as a sole entity, loses money. If it was as simple as your napkin maths, then every developer would be doing the same thing.

Valve make the vast majority of their money from Steam, i.e other people's games.

[Citation Needed]
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
TF2, as a sole entity, loses money. If it was as simple as your napkin maths, then every developer would be doing the same thing.

I believe you are guessing here.
Quote:

Valve make the vast majority of their money from Steam, i.e other people's games.

That's pretty much a given, considering how other company's games make up over 90% of the steam games catalogue.
Quote:
You said developers avoided PC development so that they could 'cheap out', be 'lazy' and 'unpolished' - if that doesn't imply cheapness that I don't know what does. Those statements couldn't be any further from the truth but makes for a nice and tidy arguement so you can somehow feel better about the situation.

Couldn't be any further from the truth? Are you guessing again? You seem to like telling people how they're wrong, but don't really go on to explain why you're right.

I didn't say console games are cheap, re-read my post. Console games are less polished than PC games, it's a fact. PCs are far more powerful, you can't get away with cutting as many corners as you can with console exclusives.

For one, console only games can have lower detailed models, lower detailed and lower res textures and need less Q&A done, again cheaper not cheap.
Quote:
There are numerous great multi-platform PC AAA titles (Batman:AA, Just Cause 2, Dirt 2) that would not exist if it wasn't for their console counterparts acting as a guarantee that they'll make their money back and I bet you've probably played and enjoyed some of them.

I didn't say all console games for one, and I was talking about console exclusives, do you have a hard time reading posts?

I'm not saying consoles are crap, and are cheapo to develop for, I'm talking about console exclusives being cheaper to make than multiplatform ones, because lazy devs (this doesn't mean all devs, I was talking about Epic in the first place) can get away with making something less polished, which is simply common sense when you think about the PC as a gaming platform
Quote:
If the PC platform made as much (or more) money as consoles, don't you think there would be more games? These developers/publishers don't hate you. They just want to make money, like every other business does.

I again don't recall saying or implying that. I didn't say console devs hated me, you really need to learn how to read posts and stop thinking of ways to "read between the lines" which means you miss the intended point completely.
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
I'm a consoler owner my self and I don't understand where you got idiot from?

That was more in reference to the quote above yours, 'Bloody console-tards' my comment towards your post was aimed at the 'cheapness' in console games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
But it's FACT that a console has lesser hardware and therefore can be done to a lower standard, why do you think so many games are rendered at low resolutions and then upscaled? Because the hardware isn't powerful enough to render it at high resolutions.
You'd be a fool to expect PC quality graphics on a current gen console, at PC monitor resolutions.

Since when was a game judged wholly and solely on its graphics? I don't expect PC level graphics from a console, I just don't think that by having a game released primarily for consoles that it's somehow inferior to a PC game.

I should clarify a point here, when you refer to the lack of polish I read this as an overall thing, if your comment was meant as a lack of polish graphically, then there's really no point to this discussion because I have the wrong end of the stick and your point would be a very valid one.

Still, there have been other people in this thread and others on this site blaming consoles for all the woes facing PC gaming and I think it's time they started looking elsewhere.
Fizzban 19th May 2010, 15:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
I really wish people would stop using the 'all console gamers are idiots and they are responsible for the decline of quality PC games' argument - it's getting old and you look stupid for using it.
Do you honestly believe that game critics go softer on a game because it's console only? Or that the vast majority of console owners are some sort of idiot who can't recognise a good game?
I've been a PC gamer all my life but I own both a PS3 and a 360, and before that I've owned a PS2 and a PSX. There are some experiences that you just cannot have on a PC.
The implication that I am some sort of idiot or ignorant in some way because I buy console games is a gross misjudgement.

Not ALL console owners are idiots, as you put it. But there is a huge market out there of people who only migrate from one console to the next. They have no knowledge of the vast library of decent games on the PC. They just see what they think is next gen graphics and get all excited. They never noticed when the xbox360 came out, that decent PC's were already as good as or better than it spec wise.

I was a little disappointed first time I saw an xbox360. I was already playing games that looked that 'shiny' on my ageing PC at home. Consoles are excellent for multiplayer madness with friends though. That's the only real point in having one IMO.
kylew 19th May 2010, 15:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
That was more in reference to the quote above yours, 'Bloody console-tards' my comment towards your post was aimed at the 'cheapness' in console games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
But it's FACT that a console has lesser hardware and therefore can be done to a lower standard, why do you think so many games are rendered at low resolutions and then upscaled? Because the hardware isn't powerful enough to render it at high resolutions.
You'd be a fool to expect PC quality graphics on a current gen console, at PC monitor resolutions.

Since when was a game judged wholly and solely on its graphics? I don't expect PC level graphics from a console, I just don't think that by having a game released primarily for consoles that it's somehow inferior to a PC game.

I should clarify a point here, when you refer to the lack of polish I read this as an overall thing, if your comment was meant as a lack of polish graphically, then there's really no point to this discussion because I have the wrong end of the stick and your point would be a very valid one.

Still, there have been other people in this thread and others on this site blaming consoles for all the woes facing PC gaming and I think it's time they started looking elsewhere.

Compare the same game on PC to the console version and you'll soon understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Some one criticising a console game wouldn't realistically slate a game for a lack of AA because it's not exactly a standard thing on consoles, despite them being capable of doing it to some extent.

Where as the PC version would get slated for having no AA options.

See what I mean now?

That's what I'm talking about when it comes to polish, because ultimately that's where the biggest differences lie when comparing a console version of a game to a PC version.

Don't get me wrong, I love consoles, I only tend to buy first party titles because their quality is generally higher than multiplatform tittles as it's only made for that specific console.

When a game is multiplatform, then I get it on PC as it's cheaper (by A LOT most of the time, the console versions are regularly close to 100% more expensive) and generally will have better graphical options and better online options, because it's just the way things are with the PC (such as dedicated servers).
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 16:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
I was a little disappointed first time I saw an xbox360. I was already playing games that looked that 'shiny' on my ageing PC at home. Consoles are excellent for multiplayer madness with friends though. That's the only real point in having one IMO.

True enough, you will always have people that think that the X360/PS3/*insert game console here* is the best thing since sliced bread and there's nothing better than it, no question there.
For me I choose to play most multi-platform games on PC, and like having the consoles around for the exclusives.
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 16:03 Quote
I offer you my apologies then kylew, I thought you had meant that console games lacked polish compared to their PC counterparts overall - not just when it came to the graphics. So I take my earlier comments back because you are 100% correct.
kylew 19th May 2010, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
I offer you my apologies then kylew, I thought you had meant that console games lacked polish compared to their PC counterparts overall - not just when it came to the graphics. So I take my earlier comments back because you are 100% correct.


No worries, to be honest though I don't really know what other major (noticeable) differences there could be between a console and PC version of a game except the graphics.

I don't think physics currently quite counts. :p
Fizzban 19th May 2010, 16:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
True enough, you will always have people that think that the X360/PS3/*insert game console here* is the best thing since sliced bread and there's nothing better than it, no question there.
For me I choose to play most multi-platform games on PC, and like having the consoles around for the exclusives.

Ah yes the exclusives. You have a point there. I'd like to play Metal Gear 4 on ps3, but alas I don't have one. :'(
GiantStickMan 19th May 2010, 16:17 Quote
Darn :( Yet to play MGS4, can't quite pull myself away from Yakuza 3 :D
That's one thing you never really get on PC, the crazy Japanese games that rarely make it outside their borders or the JRPG's.
PQuiff 19th May 2010, 16:28 Quote
Meh....least there not total douche's like Ubisoft.
kylew 19th May 2010, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PQuiff
Meh....least they're (they are) not total douches like Ubisoft.

Fixed! :)
Fizzban 19th May 2010, 16:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
Darn :( Yet to play MGS4, can't quite pull myself away from Yakuza 3 :D
That's one thing you never really get on PC, the crazy Japanese games that rarely make it outside their borders or the JRPG's.

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.
V3ctor 19th May 2010, 16:45 Quote
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)
NuTech 19th May 2010, 16:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
I believe you are guessing here.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Couldn't be any further from the truth? Are you guessing again? You seem to like telling people how they're wrong, but don't really go on to explain why you're right.

I didn't say console games are cheap, re-read my post. Console games are less polished than PC games, it's a fact. PCs are far more powerful, you can't get away with cutting as many corners as you can with console exclusives.

For one, console only games can have lower detailed models, lower detailed and lower res textures and need less Q&A done, again cheaper not cheap.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
I didn't say all console games for one, and I was talking about console exclusives, do you have a hard time reading posts?

I'm not saying consoles are crap, and are cheapo to develop for, I'm talking about console exclusives being cheaper to make than multiplatform ones, because lazy devs (this doesn't mean all devs, I was talking about Epic in the first place) can get away with making something less polished, which is simply common sense when you think about the PC as a gaming platform
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.
knuck 19th May 2010, 17:05 Quote
**peaking**

http://www.manataka.org/images/Grizzly%20Bear%20Peaking.jpg

Did somebody mention Epic ?

Yes ? Oh, okay then... I guess it's my job to mention that UT3 sucked


ciao !
Boogle 19th May 2010, 17:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
I believe you are guessing here.
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.

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.
kylew 19th May 2010, 17:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
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.

You're still guessing either way.
Quote:
Just because a game doesn't run at 1900x1200 or features 16xAA, doesn't mean they 'cut corners'.
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.
Quote:
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?
See above, that's not what I said.
Quote:
If anything, recent console exclusive games are more expensive to make than recent PC exclusive games.
Again, not what I said, as above.
Quote:
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?
Again not what I said, see above.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
Again you're generalising way too much.
You're not reading and responding to what I'm actually saying.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
We can argue back and forth all day. But ultimately it's sales figures that have the final word, not either of our opinions.

You're not really arguing with what I'm saying, as you're not reading what I'm saying properly.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 17:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
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.
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.
steveo_mcg 19th May 2010, 17:36 Quote
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?
kylew 19th May 2010, 17:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
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.


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.
kylew 19th May 2010, 17:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
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?

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.
devdevil85 19th May 2010, 17:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Piracy is just as rampant on 360 as it is on PC, check the torrents!
Xbox piracy does exist, but if you think it's just as rampant then you're crazy. 'Hacked' Xbox's make up a small minority, a dip in the ocean compared to PC.
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....
pimlicosound 19th May 2010, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
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.

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.
Unknownsock 19th May 2010, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Xbox piracy does exist, but if you think it's just as rampant then you're crazy. 'Hacked' Xbox's make up a small minority, a dip in the ocean compared to PC.

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...
wafflesomd 19th May 2010, 18:05 Quote
He's right.

There's a lot of money in releasing unoriginal rehashes.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 18:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
that's not what I said. x15
Quote:
Originally Posted by A direct quote from kylew
For one, console only games can have lower detailed models, lower detailed and lower res textures and need less Q&A done, again cheaper not cheap.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
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.
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
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?).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
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....
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.
DriftCarl 19th May 2010, 18:26 Quote
Quote:

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.
steveo_mcg 19th May 2010, 18:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
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?

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.
Unknownsock 19th May 2010, 18:31 Quote
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by AshT
http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/05/...-us-game-reve/

The money is in consoles. Simples.

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?
Quote:
Germany is still a huge PC game market; a whopping 36 percent of its game revenues go to the PC platform.
:D
hardski 19th May 2010, 18:37 Quote
Pirating 360 games are easier than PC simply because you dont have to crack them to make them run.
Theres a shop in every high street that will flash your 360 then all you have to do is burn and play.
Every format has been pirated since the start of affordable media, VHS, DVD, now you can buy a Blu Ray burner so where are developers gonna turn to next?
If they make it so easy you cant blame people for trying because if you look at your games collection how many are actually worth £40?
NuTech 19th May 2010, 18:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
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.
That's my point, so many developers barely get their game to a good release standard, let alone spend 3 years releasing fantastic updates.

This is why many developers (including the two I talked to) conclude that TF2 is a loss leader.

Goodwill is priceless and fantastic to have, I agree. But supporting a game for that long costs a huge amount of money.

EDIT:

Again my question still stands: If the goodwill of supporting and updating (for free) a game for three years creates enough regular new customers to turn a profit, why don't more developers/publishers do it?

If people like yourself, Boogle and kylew don't agree with the opinion that TF2 is a loss leader intended to promote Steam, you should have no problem answering that question and proving me wrong.
Er-El 19th May 2010, 18:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
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?

And correct me if im wrong but downloads are still not included in any figures yet right?


:D
Also considering the fact the consoles part of that pie chart includes every single games console (DS, PSP, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PS2, etc.) against just a single platform, PC. So therefore, PC is indeed equally as profitable as other platforms are.

Epic need to just get it in their heads, their PC games simply aren't good like they once were, and until they are their titles will carry on selling poorly.
mastorofpuppetz 19th May 2010, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardski
Pirating 360 games are easier than PC simply because you dont have to crack them to make them run.
Theres a shop in every high street that will flash your 360 then all you have to do is burn and play.
Every format has been pirated since the start of affordable media, VHS, DVD, now you can buy a Blu Ray burner so where are developers gonna turn to next?
If they make it so easy you cant blame people for trying because if you look at your games collection how many are actually worth £40?

HUH? Almost every torrent have PC games already cracked and ready to play after DL. It is NOT easier to pirate on console, first you need to mod the actual hardware, Pc it's just a simple DL in most cases.

Also people have been perma banned from live, many don't want to take that risk.
pimlicosound 19th May 2010, 18:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Either way a business's main focus should not be money.

Yes, it should be. At least, it should be if they want to stay in business, satisfy shareholders, keep their employees and carry on making games.

And if you want to carry on playing great games, you'd better hope that they focus on the money.
Mik3yB @ CCL 19th May 2010, 19:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pimlicosound
Yes, it should be. At least, it should be if they want to stay in business, satisfy shareholders, keep their employees and carry on making games.

And if you want to carry on playing great games, you'd better hope that they focus on the money.

Dictionary definition of "Business"

Economic system in which goods and services are exchanged for one another or money, on the basis of their perceived worth. Every business requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent basis.

:D
pimlicosound 19th May 2010, 19:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Dictionary definition of "Business"

Yes.
Sloth 19th May 2010, 19:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
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.
You're sailing in a strange boat on this one...

Why does TF2 keep going? Because people still buy it (as stated by Valve). Yes, you can buy games after the first week they come out, it's magical. By releasing so many updates it isn't a three year old game anymore to most people, it's still just as new and exciting as any release in the last few years. Look at Counter Strike: Source as well, it's getting a somewhat large update soon which is really just copying some code over from TF2. They'll be selling a great deal of copies on a six year old game which costs a whopping $20 still, and people will be fine paying that since it seems new.

Methinks Valve is learning from the MMO market: constantly update game, constantly gain players.

As for Portal, yes it has helped spread Steam and I won't say that Steam isn't a large source of revenue, but to say that free Portal is only to help spread Steam would be downright shortsighted. Portal 2 is sure to be coming out in the somewhat near future, being a sequel it will generally only sell to those who have played Portal 1. Fortunately for Valve, almost everyone who would have any vague interesting in Portal 2 now has no excuse not to buy it.
Fizzban 19th May 2010, 19:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
WHEN THERE'S NO MORE ROOM IN HELL THE DEAD WILL WALK THE EARTH

When this happens shotgun sales will go through the roof. Also we will be able to live our zombie-apocalypse fantasies in full, glorious, blood-drenched HD. :D

Personally I cant wait.
RichCreedy 19th May 2010, 19:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
I imagine it would cost more developing for PC as you have to design something that can run on multiple different hardware configurations and specification levels and then supply technical support to the product long after its release, whereas with consoles you have less of these sorts of issues. Though i don't know much about the inner workings of the industry so I could be wrong.

Spot on.

Testing for PC Games must take ages longer than for consoles.
Its proven that its harder to develop for PC than console in that PC games will almost always have patches, whereas you never really hear about console games having lots of bugs and requiring constant patching.

you dont have a ps3 then, if you did, you would know games are constantly requiring updates, before you can play them
Yslen 19th May 2010, 19:23 Quote
Until someone writes an article on piracy that doesn't commit the fallacy of believing "one pirated copy equals one lost sale" I'm going to stop reading articles about piracy altogether.

When something is available for what is perceived to be a "bargain" price, the number of people interested in buying it goes up. If the price drops a lot, the increase is huge - look at Microsoft's sales of Windows 7 at £30 for students (and Office too).

Pirated content, software or otherwise, is essentially free, as far as the pirate is concerned. It should be immediately obvious then that there is a flaw in the logic that in a piracy-free world, sales would increase by the same amount. If the option of piracy was not available, a large proportion of those pirating content would never actually buy it. If someone could work out some sort of general relationship between the price difference for a good (£0-£market price) and the percentage of extra "customers" (in this case being pirates), it should be possible to work out a more accurate value for sales lost to piracy. It would be a much smaller number than those flung about in these sorts of discussions.

As a (slightly flawed) estimation of this, I would be interested to see the sales figures for a given region for a popular game (lets say COD4, something like that) on PC and on one of the consoles. I would then like to see those numbers normalised to the number of people who own the required system in that region. This would produce COD4 sales as a percentage of (for example) PS3 owners and as a percentage of PC owners (where "PC" means a computer meeting the minimum requirements to play the game owned by a person who plays computer games on said PC). Effectively this is a comparison of potential buyers versus actual sales - and the impact of piracy, if there is a significant one, would be immediately clear.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 19:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
You're sailing in a strange boat on this one...

Why does TF2 keep going? Because people still buy it (as stated by Valve). Yes, you can buy games after the first week they come out, it's magical. By releasing so many updates it isn't a three year old game anymore to most people, it's still just as new and exciting as any release in the last few years. Look at Counter Strike: Source as well, it's getting a somewhat large update soon which is really just copying some code over from TF2. They'll be selling a great deal of copies on a six year old game which costs a whopping $20 still, and people will be fine paying that since it seems new.

Methinks Valve is learning from the MMO market: constantly update game, constantly gain players.

As for Portal, yes it has helped spread Steam and I won't say that Steam isn't a large source of revenue, but to say that free Portal is only to help spread Steam would be downright shortsighted. Portal 2 is sure to be coming out in the somewhat near future, being a sequel it will generally only sell to those who have played Portal 1. Fortunately for Valve, almost everyone who would have any vague interesting in Portal 2 now has no excuse not to buy it.
Do you honestly believe that those new customers provide enough revenue to fully fund the 120+ updates (remember existing players pay nothing, so your MMO comparison is completely irreverent)? Do you know how much it costs to keep paying (good) developers for three years? Yes, people do buy games after release date, but enough to fund all that?

I think this is the third time I've asked this question now, so if I'm sailing such a strange boat you should have no problem answering it: Why don't more developers or publishers support/update their game (for free) for three years if it is profitable to do so?
bigsharn 19th May 2010, 19:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardski
Pirating 360 games are easier than PC simply because you dont have to crack them to make them run.


This is what made me laugh at the article, you summed it up :p
steveo_mcg 19th May 2010, 19:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
That's my point, so many developers barely get their game to a good release standard, let alone spend 3 years releasing fantastic updates.

This is why many developers (including the two I talked to) conclude that TF2 is a loss leader.

Goodwill is priceless and fantastic to have, I agree. But supporting a game for that long costs a huge amount of money.

EDIT:

Again my question still stands: If the goodwill of supporting and updating (for free) a game for three years creates enough regular new customers to turn a profit, why don't more developers/publishers do it?

If people like yourself, Boogle and kylew don't agree with the opinion that TF2 is a loss leader intended to promote Steam, you should have no problem answering that question and proving me wrong.

Publishers like their profit to come in exactly when they specify it will, it keeps the markets happy, Valve have no share holders they don't need to keep the markets happy they can have cash come trickling in if they so choose.

Your argument is that valve is a publisher not a Dev? I ask you then if being a Pub means that they can support a game for 3 years after launch at apparent huge costs why do Dice et al go through EA?
Yslen 19th May 2010, 20:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Why don't more developers or publishers support/update their game (for free) for three years if it is profitable to do so?

I think Valve does it because more TF2 players = more people using steam on a regular basis. I myself am a perfect example - I never really used steam because it was more expensive than buying from online retailers (plus I actually got a box). Then I started playing TF2, and as if by magic, I've started buying games from steam too.

They haven't really advertised it, but the fact that you can burn a game to disk/save to a storage drive is really an excellent feature. It's actually better than having a boxed version of the game, because you can periodically update your backup to include all of the patches since the original release. You can even buy a game on steam then use a friend's backup to install the game + updates in a few minutes, without having to wait for any downloads. It's awesome. So, Valve, why did I not know about this feature before I found it for myself? If you'd told me about it 3 years ago I'd have been buying games on steam from then on...
Sloth 19th May 2010, 21:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Do you honestly believe that those new customers provide enough revenue to fully fund the 120+ updates (remember existing players pay nothing, so your MMO comparison is completely irreverent)? Do you know how much it costs to keep paying (good) developers for three years? Yes, people do buy games after release date, but enough to fund all that?

I think this is the third time I've asked this question now, so if I'm sailing such a strange boat you should have no problem answering it: Why don't more developers or publishers support/update their game (for free) for three years if it is profitable to do so?
I do, actually. According to Valve there were record sales for TF2 over their Christmas sale and one weekend sale where TF2 was something in the area of $5 or less. So many sales, in fact, that they made quite a profit off of a game that would otherwise only sell a handful of $20 copies. A combination of sales and updates makes TF2 a game which plenty of people are still interested in playing, even after three years. People who never felt like buying the game before, or people who are new to the market in the last three years (three years in a growing market can't be too sahbby...).

Valve is also a pretty small company, 225 employees says Wikipedia (citing a Gameinformer article). To add some new weapons and a couple new achievements isn't exactly a huge task either. I'm not a game developer by any means, but common sense says that adding and fixing a current product is cheaper than cranking out a whole new product line. Less revenue will be needed to support it.

Continuing that thought, and trying to get more towards your question, Valve hasn't exactly released many new games anyway. Many of their franchises release on very long cycles with a continued profit between each release. They must update their games to keep people interested over the any years in which they are release-less. Left4Dead is starting to break that cycle, limited updates as compared to TF2, yet also very frequent releases to increase profit. L4D and L4D2 were literally one year apart, with updates about six months after each release (just recently The Passing. Expect a new update just around holiday season to entice new buyers). It's simply a different style of producing games. Other developers and publishers can get similar profit by creating new games on a shorter interval and abandoning old ones, so they do. It's arguably safer to do that because a failed game will be replaced in a year, yet a largely successful game will still net huge profit over its one year. Just look at CoD:WaW and CoD:MW2. Different business models is all.
NuTech 19th May 2010, 21:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Publishers like their profit to come in exactly when they specify it will, it keeps the markets happy, Valve have no share holders they don't need to keep the markets happy they can have cash come trickling in if they so choose.
Right, so you think that the trickle of cash coming from new TF2 customers (remember the game sells at a very low price) covers the cost of employing fantastic developers plus other overheads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Your argument is that valve is a publisher not a Dev? I ask you then if being a Pub means that they can support a game for 3 years after launch at apparent huge costs why do Dice et al go through EA?
No. My arguement (which started as a reply to Baz and Kylew) was that it's unfair and nonsensical of them to compare other 'normal' developers to Valve, which is what they were doing.

Being a publisher is not my arguement, being the most popular digital content delivery platform in the world is. It makes perfect business sense for them to update amazing games like TF2 for three years, or release Portal for free because it promotes their content delivery system.

Loss leaders are incredibly common in the business world, it makes complete sense for them to lose a little bit of money supporting TF2 so that they can rake in 40-50% of the profits from all other games sold via Steam.

Now if Valve didn't have Steam, do you think they could of afforded to keep all those developers working on TF2 updates or would they of done what every other developer in the world does and move on to new games?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
I think Valve does it because more TF2 players = more people using steam on a regular basis. I myself am a perfect example - I never really used steam because it was more expensive than buying from online retailers (plus I actually got a box). Then I started playing TF2, and as if by magic, I've started buying games from steam too.
Bingo! We have a winner.
juststsomeguy26 19th May 2010, 21:23 Quote
Excuses excuses.
The percentage of gamers smart enough to go and get a pirate copy of a game isn't honestly all that hight.
I'd attribute the fall in the PC to consoles expanding into traditional PC areas like the internet streaming media and such. Prior to this generation even hard drives were after market upgrades to consoles. All this was designed to blur the lines and bring PC users into console gaming, now people are surprised it worked ?
Not the least factor is rise of the Wii. Sure its supposedly the console gaming market outside its previous demographic. The PC was and is however a fixture in many households where gaming wasn't "serious" enough to warrant an expensive and dedicated console.
Writing people without consoles off as non gamers is a flawed assumption. They may well have been what we now know as casual gamers, with the PC as their platform. With the Wii cheap, simple and in no way serious it may well have supplanted this casual PC gaming market.

Sure piracy can be a problem, but in this instance its just a scapegoat for developers avoiding the cost of developing high end PC titles now that upper end PC hardware is so far ahead of current consoles.
Grimloon 19th May 2010, 21:24 Quote
Going back to an earlier comment regarding testing being easier on consoles rather than PCs it definitely holds true that a system using known hardware and software is a hell of a lot easier to test on than the average PC which, to be brutally honest, is usually something of a Heinz in pedigree.

DirectX takes some of the uncertainty out of this but, at present, there are 3 different versions in use. DX9 still uses a HAL so that has to be coded for and take in to account varying audio and video hardware while DX10 and DX11 have done away with this. Add on top of that 3 different Windows operating systems in common use as well as 32 bit and 64 bit flavours of each then it starts sounding like a good idea for them to go to console instead as what do they have there? The same hardware and software on every box and, at worst, 3 dev and QA teams for each major console platform as opposed to significantly more for the PC.

OK, so that's a worst case scenario and we know that it simply doesn't happen that way but please believe me when I say that testing even a simple web based application on a known system is infinitely more simple and requires far fewer man hours (and therefore significantly less money) than trying to make something work well on every PC.

While I can understand Epic choosing to develop on consoles only for the above reasons and the economic difference it makes, I definitely don't agree with the "Boohoo! Pirates made us do it!" announcement.

With regards to the ongoing debate encompassing business models etc...

*grabs popcorn and a beer* :D
NuTech 19th May 2010, 21:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
snip
Okay, so your arguement is that overtime (and especially during the $5 sale) they've made enough money from TF2 alone to support the game for three years.

We can agree that neither of us truly know how many copies they've sold.

My arguement is that don't you think if this system could work without Steam pumping Valve full of cash, that at least some other developers would be doing it?

With the very high amount of loses currently happening in the game industry, if that system really worked surely others would be doing it too?
Boogle 19th May 2010, 21:38 Quote
The Steam sales charts are done be revenue rather than sales. Any time a game makes it into the top 10 you can guarantee it's making a crap load of money.

NuTech, you keep bringing up this '120' updates figure over and over. That means nothing, it could mean 120 bug fixes, 120 new maps, 120 tweaks to the existing codebase. Quite frankly your lack of any detail and inability to think outside of an extremely small number of business practices (just 1 - loss leading) isn't helping. If you've actually got any argument outside of heresay then I'd be glad to hear it. But saying the same thing in every post isn't helping.

However I do have a few games that have support for years and years, including big map updates:

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Unreal Tournament
Quake 3
Painkiller
Left 4 Dead
CounterStrike
Numerous Indie titals
Many iphone apps
Tribes
Unreal 2 (game was a flop - but still had the money to make a very large free MP expansion)

Of course the many free-to-play MMOs have numerous free updates too.

I'm almost postive TF2 and Portal aren't loss-leaders. Portal was in the charts for an extremely long time, coming back in all of the sales. These charts are ranked by revenue remember, the number of sales is irrelevent as is the price per item. TF2 is in a similar position. Now, due to Valve owning steam, this latest Portal promotion will ensure the platform gets a quick uptake for the Mac - this IS for the platform. However the loss isn't there since the profit has been made, and the cost for streaming the game will be (relatively) low - certainly not enough to really dent the bottom line.

Your argument is that continuing updates is impossible because a game ceases to sell - therefore putting the developer/publisher in a tricky position of making no money, but spending to do the updates. The argument other people are making is that these games are still selling - at least enought to cover the costs.

Without any figures you simply cannot say one way or the other. I'm inclinded to side with the dev not being too expensive, regardless of the quantity of updates - each update seems to be a relatively minor thing, which is very cheap. You can pull off a dev or two to quickly do a few bug fixes or add some functionality. Given the ongoing sales of TF2 it's most likely covered. This is backed up by numerous other developers / publishers releasing sizeable updates for games years after release. I don't think TF2 will have any sizeable impact on Steam sales - it's only one game among hundreds. If you're saying it's a heavyweight, then you would have to admit that with that it would have made an absolute fortune and a few updates after release will not even be noticed, financially. With or without TF2, Steam will still be adding and selling games at a largely similar rate - unless it's the heavyweight of course.

Still I seriously doubt you'll change your view - and that's OK too. Either of us could easily be wrong. However, unless you can prove it one way or the other - there's no point getting all bent out of shape. I mean, it would suck for the world to be flat or spherical when you thought it was the other and argued tooth and nail.
leslie 19th May 2010, 21:38 Quote
I'm sorry, but it sure seems a little too easy to just sit back and claim piracy caused the problem. It's been shown many times over that companies still make plenty of money even with piracy and that a pirated game or software isn't necessarily lost revenue.

Piracy is a problem, but if it makes you sink you were already borderline. These people act like piracy doesn't exist on consoles, which is a load of rubbish.

Execs need to stop using piracy as a scapegoat for poor numbers.
If piracy was having a significant impact, we would not be seeing new records on games, movies and music sales.
Boogle 19th May 2010, 21:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
snip
With the very high amount of loses currently happening in the game industry, if that system really worked surely others would be doing it too?

Sorry, promised myself I wouldn't post anymore - but this is just too juicy to ignore since you seem to post this in every post.

If Google can make so much money providing a simple Internet search, why isn't everyone doing it?
If Facebook is making so much money providing social networking, why isn't everyone doing it?
If MS can make so much money selling an OS and Office suite, why isn't everyone doing it?
If Tesco can make so much money selling food, why isn't everyone doing it?
If Intel can make so much money making CPUs, why isn't everyond doing it?
If Sony can make so much money making consoles (PSX - made a fortune, PS2 - made a fortune, PS3 - whoops), why isn't everyone doing it?

There's plenty of examples where a company makes an absolute fortune doing something - but no one else can quite capture the magic or essence and replicate it. Sometimes you'll get a few select companies able to provide the service, while everyone else fails.

I do wish the world was that simple though :(
ZERO <ibis> 19th May 2010, 21:46 Quote
Basically they could not make games that were good enough to compete on the pc and turned to other systems with lower standards.
Sloth 19th May 2010, 21:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Okay, so your arguement is that overtime (and especially during the $5 sale) they've made enough money from TF2 alone to support the game for three years.

We can agree that neither of us truly know how many copies they've sold.

My arguement is that don't you think if this system could work without Steam pumping Valve full of cash, that at least some other developers would be doing it?

With the very high amount of loses currently happening in the game industry, if that system really worked surely others would be doing it too?
That is my argument, yes. I'm quite confident that it sells, just thinking about various Steam friends mentioning purchases of it during the class pack releases, along with other Valve games such as L4D when The Passing came out. Free Portal got me hooked since I'd never played it over the last three years and will now likely buy Portal 2.

I would assume that publishers are the reasons why other developers aren't doing this. Tell Activision you'd rather spend time perfecting your game and making updates and getting new players as you go, you'll probably get fired without your royalties!

Your [true] mention that neither of us knows how many copies are sold makes me wonder, though, just how much they make off of each sale on Steam. Their own games surely make more since there's no extra publisher cut, but I wonder what they get from outside games. A game in a brick and mortar store going for $60 gives some to the retailer, so when Steam sells the same game for $50 who loses that profit? Developer, publisher, retailer?
Grimloon 19th May 2010, 22:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZERO <ibis>
Basically they could not make games that were good enough to compete on the pc and turned to other systems with lower standards.

"BOOM! Headshot!" :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
* snip

I'd semi promised myself not to get involved in this one but I definitely agree with your comments. I really wasn't fussed by Portal when it was released (I don't get to shoot someone? No knives or clubs? Meh!) but since I've played it I can appreciate the appeal. Portal 2 is definitely on the list.

I don't know what the markup is for games stores but in my part of the retail industry 50% is the absolute, bare minimum after taking overheads in to account. IIRC 52% was quoted as the standard supermarket markup many moons ago, I don't know how true it is nowadays. If we assume this to be true for other areas of retail then the Steam percentage is about the same but they have fewer overheads so more of the gross profit goes in to their pockets. Yes, servers and bandwidth aren't exactly cheap but cost significantly less than bricks and mortar stores spread across whichever country you happen to be in.

NuTech has a very valid point in saying that you can't really compare Valve's business model to anyone else. They developed games for the PC, created a central update source as well as the gamer equivalent of social networking and then added a digital distribution network - I can't think of anyone else who's done the same or that even comes close to the same scope. It's certainly an unfair comparison.

However, saying that, there are odd occasions of a company providing something for nothing on the PC. I used to extensively play RTCW: Enemy Territory and don't recall Splash Damage asking me for any money. They realeased the game for the massive price of free and supported it for some time. The free to play MMO line doesn't count though - "micro transactions". They make more off this than many pay to play MMOs.

Totally random thought - why is it always pirates that get the blame? Surely ninjas should bear some responsibility too? :p
Saivert 19th May 2010, 23:03 Quote
nice to finally be able to update my shitlist:

* Epic
* Infinity Ward
* Rockstar

I never cared much for any of Epic Games' games anyways. Boring!
kylew 19th May 2010, 23:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
I'm sorry, but it sure seems a little too easy to just sit back and claim piracy caused the problem. It's been shown many times over that companies still make plenty of money even with piracy and that a pirated game or software isn't necessarily lost revenue.

Piracy is a problem, but if it makes you sink you were already borderline. These people act like piracy doesn't exist on consoles, which is a load of rubbish.

Execs need to stop using piracy as a scapegoat for poor numbers.
If piracy was having a significant impact, we would not be seeing new records on games, movies and music sales.

They will see how many copies have been "pirated" and then multiply it by the highest price the game goes for, then claim that's how much money they've "lost".

They will never accept that there are download hoarders who download but never get around to playing, or that there are people who buy the game, but download it as well and run a cracked version, or the people that wouldn't ever, under any circumstances, buy that game, then the people who treat downloads as demos, felt the game was rubbish and or didn't warrant the asking price, and never touched it again.
Grimloon 20th May 2010, 00:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
They will see how many copies have been "pirated" and then multiply it by the highest price the game goes for, then claim that's how much money they've "lost".

They will never accept that there are download hoarders who download but never get around to playing, or that there are people who buy the game, but download it as well and run a cracked version, or the people that wouldn't ever, under any circumstances, buy that game, then the people who treat downloads as demos, felt the game was rubbish and or didn't warrant the asking price, and never touched it again.

Don't you just love figures direct from the coloured pencil office?

(CPOM = Coloured Pencil Office Muppet, EE = Everyone Else)

CPOM: We're down on predicted revenue.
EE: We're up 3% on last year and we just happen to be in a recession! What the mucky 'eck are you complaining about?!
CPOM: It doesn't matter, my stats don't lie. We're not making enough money - it must be the pirates. Or the ninjas! Sneaky gits! Winged mokeys! It's all their fault! Crayons! I need more crayons dagnabbit! How can I be expected to produce pretty pictures without crayons?!
EE: *whispers to colleague* Make sure that they're non-toxic, OK?

(No excessive disrespect intended towards marketing bods - you sell it, some of us poor saps just have to make what you promised actually work).

Joking aside, the most true quote ever is "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". You can make stats say anything you want to. Piracy is the current target, the raison d'etre for poor sales. "We didn't buy it because it's crap" is not an acceptable answer.
Lockon Stratos 20th May 2010, 00:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZERO <ibis>
Basically they could not make games that were good enough to compete on the pc and turned to other systems with lower standards.

I totally agree. there is so much compeition in the games market. & they probably didnt have what it took to make great games the way they use to. UT03-UT3 were plausable at most, not that great tbh, but I dont think the games really truely took off compared to how big CoD4, BF2 & BC2 was. so its a real poor excuse on their part.

piracy exists on consoles too, but maybe not half as much compared to the PC platform.

the drummer in our band had an old hacked Xbox with all these old games n sh*t loaded on. Piracy exists on consoles too. you can avoid it.

Im an honest guy, if im unsure about a game & theres no demo out for a game, I dowload it, test it out then buy the game if i like it. I mainly play online multiplayer games so I have to have legit games otherwise I'l be forever stuck on cracked server with no punkbuster thats crawling with aimbots,


the UT franchise has been milked & milked & milked maybe they should spend less time whining & more time developing new games that dont reuse elements of their previous games.

if people like the game they will buy a legit copy to play online - thats how it works. but if your game sucks then why would people want to buy it?


Piracy or not. if they want to spend the rest of the time doing mundane hacks n tweaks for consoles then good for them. but i thought it would be a lot more exciting & challenging making games for the pc due to the advanced hardware it has compared to consoles. if they want to turn their back on the people who skyrocketed them to popularity more power to them. i dont feel any sympathy for them if they lose even more sales & go bust.
Yslen 20th May 2010, 01:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
the people who treat downloads as demos, felt the game was rubbish and or didn't warrant the asking price, and never touched it again.

<sheepishly raises hand>

That would be me. Well, I don't do any downloading, but my friends turn up with a ton of pirated games which we play for a bit to see how good they are. 85% of them get deleted, but the ones that last get purchased. I can name a couple of dozen titles I'd never have bought off the shelf or based on reviews or gameplay videos that I now own and love - there's no comparison to playing the full game to see whether you want to buy it or not.

When the game in question is one to be played over LAN (Resident Evil 5 - fairly dreadful in SP but enormous fun in coop, especially when you deliberately try to get the other player eaten by a giant crocodile) it costs 2x the retail price to try the game out the legal way. That's a VERY expensive mistake if it turns out to be a bad game that you play for an hour then never come back to.

Granted, this method of decision making is a) technically illegal and b) potentially hurting game developer profits because they don't get all the cash from the various "expensive mistakes" I would undoubtedly make buying things the other way (I spent £30 on prince of persia last year, based on a rave review on IGN - it looks great, but the gameplay is terrible; designed for someone with only two fingers, a very short attention span and poor hand-eye coordination). I will argue that these "extended demos" mean I only ever buy genuinely good games. This means people who make bad games don't make much money, and inevitably shift over to consoles, where the average gamer will have no idea how much they're going to enjoy a title before they buy it.

It's a bit like the music industry. Chart shows (ToTP etc) pre-internet always struck me as daft, especially the album charts. Every time a new over-hyped album by a famous name hit the streets, tom, dick, harry, simon, george, sebastian and the rest of the UK went out and bought it. Chances are, most of them listened to it a few times and then largely ignored it, as was the way with CDs, tapes and albums - only the favourites got lots of use. This meant the charts showed "best marketed product this week" not "best-loved musical creation this week". With the advent of the 'pod, and digital download charts, everything has suddenly become a bit more accurate. What I'd really like to see is some feedback (optional via itunes or something) that combines the "top 25 most played" autoplaylists from every ipod in the world to produce a "top 25 best songs ever according to people who own an ipod". I'm getting a bit off the point here, I know, but bear with me.

Game sales do not equal a good game where nobody knows what they're really buying. If a developer wants to make as much money as possible, it is in their interests to sell to a market where it's really difficult for the user to work out if what they're buying is right for them before handing over their cash. In this scenario (consoles) the developers and publishers are laughing all the way to the jars under their beds (due to bad experiences with icelandic banks).

For games on the PC, anyone wanting to know where they should spend their money can try a game out (albeit illegally) before they buy it. This means none of these people will ever buy a bad game (unless they're drunk). In a wonderful Darwinian fashion, this means all the underachieving developers should eventually leave PC game development for good, leaving only the best of the best, because nobody else can make any money.

Of course, this scenario depends on a) no shoddy console ports and b) PC gamers as a whole being an honest bunch and actually buying the titles they've been trying out through piracy if they like them.

Like I said earlier, I doubt most of the people who pirate and never buy the title would EVER have bought it if they didn't have the piracy option - and if they had it would have been a "mistake purchase". Conning a customer into buying something they don't want by cunning use of misinformation is arguably less moral than piracy in the first place, and on that basis I feel I can in good conscience continue to try games out through piracy then choose not to buy if I don't like them.

Wow, long post. This happens when I have revision to do. Hmph.
sarah_t_s 20th May 2010, 02:06 Quote
What utter rubbish. Money drove them to consoles pure and simple. That's fine and frankly ever since the steaming turd that was Unreal 2 landed on my door step I've never, knowingly, touched one of their products.

Seriously, you take the game Unreal, which was fantastic in its time and release a follow up, excellent. Except you lift all of the good bits from the original (Skaarj appearing from the dark, although in U2 it drops down an elevator shaft rather than a hidden door in a corridor) including the singularly unique ending (you die, alone, in a life pod). Then get upset when people figure out you've just charged them £40 for the same damn thing they already had and start to bitch at you about it.

Screw em. Hope they go bust.

Although I'm a fine one to talk about PC gaming. Considering I got fed up of Windows and went Mac.
Warrior24_7 20th May 2010, 02:59 Quote
What has been quietly whispered, widely rumored, publically denied, and totally downplayed by the PC gaming community at large, has been finally admitted! Piracy is affecting PC gaming. Piracy drove them off. Epic, Crytek, Infinity Ward, id Software and others have all said as much in the past, but it was ignored or downplayed. Nobody (PC gamers most notably) wants to look this ugly fact in the face. It's like looking in the mirror and not being happy with what you see. They jumped ship, or were pushed overboard by pirates! Don't blame this on just "money", ALL companies are in it for the money. Nobody does anything for free. Hell, pirates are in it for the money, as they don't want to spend any! Now the sour grapes set in. They suck, the games suck, they aren't worth it, blah, blah, blah. Now Epic is the latest company to be so called banished from PC lore because... they admitted the truth!

They told a dirty little family secret, that said something that everybody thought, but wouldn't say it out loud! Well, they said it out loud! Honestly, whats the big deal about this? They're still making games for the PC, they're just multi-platform now. So is Crytek, so where is the outrage towards them? Why the outrage at all? Just be glad that games are coming. Console games are getting better and better, while the PC has stagnated. Nobody wants to take a financial risk by developing big budget, exclusive, AAA games on the PC platform. We all know why, piracy is a problem on the PC. The game has changed, and it's NOT going back in the forseeable future. It is what it is, get over it.
Gunsmith 20th May 2010, 03:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior24_7
bollocks

for those of you unaware this "troll" likes to be povoke prople, kindly ignore him.
Warrior24_7 20th May 2010, 03:33 Quote
Put it in your mouth
CowBlazed 20th May 2010, 03:43 Quote
Wow I just read this whole thing and have to say, Nutech read this article here so that you can also come to the same conclusion as me.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/02/20/valve-steam-is-making-us-rich/1
Quote:
Apparently every time [Valve] drop a new update they get a minimum of a 100 percent increase in sales for that game, while the ability to gift games to other accounts has seen a 71 percent increase in sales, total, and a 75 percent increase in the number of Steam registrations.

That conclusion is, you are an utter moron. I'm thinking you had 1 too many drinks with those devs and took permanent damage, its OK though: sane logical people are here to help. Really wish kylew kept posting because you were spot on with every single point, maybe nutech could've stopped spewing a bit earlier.

The one biggest thing I'd like to make fun of Nutech for is this:

Team Fortress 2 and Portal were practically FREE to begin with! All you had to do was buy Orange Box.

This is where he'd spew well it was only to get Steam subscribers which is only wrong because of the word only. Every person who buys a Valve game on PC is thus a Steam user. Valve made their millions off these games and can never lose that no matter how many updates they release.

What else are you going to claim is a loss leader... maybe Counter Strike: Source cause it was FREE too when you bought HL2? Please say you think that because its been in the top selling list on Steam for years now. Maybe HL2 itself was a loss leader, after all they REALLY wanted Steam subscribers back then right? lol.
Aracos 20th May 2010, 06:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Piracy is just as rampant on 360 as it is on PC, check the torrents!
Xbox piracy does exist, but if you think it's just as rampant then you're crazy. 'Hacked' Xbox's make up a small minority, a dip in the ocean compared to PC.

I agree with devdevil, but unfortunately there isn't a true way to gauge console piracy just like there isn't a good way to gauge PC piracy, torrents aren't the be all and end all, for instance look at sites like ESPALWii and Wiisos, just about every game released on there comes with MU/RS/other DD provider links and personally if I was gonna pirate a Wii game then I definately would go for DD over torrents since I would get consistantly better speeds using the likes jDownloader, I wouldn't even need to manually start the downloads, if I was to pirate a game then I'd definately go for the DD, but who is going to manually check the downloads of each link to get an idea of how many times they've been downloaded? I'd be willing to bet there are even PC orientated sites like wiisos, etc. It's just so much easier to say PC piracy is much bigger because it's much easier to pirate PC games but at the end of the day if you know how to pirate PC games it doesn't take long to find out how to pirate console games, even making multi game DVD's for a wii is a walk in the park after a couple of times! The only hurdle imo of pirating on consoles is the modding stage but there is more than enough information on the internet that will baby step you through the process(es).

And yes I'm talking from experience, I've personally hard/soft modded my own Wii and in the past I've pirated PC games (but happy to say I haven't pirated a PC game in at least a year and most games I've pirated are now owned on my steam account :)). In summary there isn't any way you can truely say PC piracy is bigger or smaller than console piracy because there's no true way to count how much something has been pirated.

Also if there's anything in my post I'm not allowed to mention feel free to edit my post mods but I can't see anything I'm not allowed to mention since I'm posting in a Piracy related news post.
perplekks45 20th May 2010, 08:35 Quote
I wonder if they heard of this small company... Blizzard I think they're called.
GiantStickMan 20th May 2010, 08:48 Quote
Yslen raises an interesting point, whilst I cannot condone any form of piracy, using his example if he was to purchase every game that looked good instead of the old 'try before you buy' approach, that means he'd buy less good games and probably end up buying a lot of stuff that wasn't worth it. With the approach he has he can work out the wheat from the chaff and only good games worth their full retail are getting his money.

Again, I'm not condoning piracy, just want to point out that the 'every pirated copy is a lost sale' theory is wrong. Sure, there would be people who, unable to pirate games would buy them, but if that were the case wouldn't you think that sales for multiplatform games would be higher on PS3, being that it is the only system that cannot yet be pirated? The lack of any real figures though means that all of this is purely speculation.
2bdetermine 20th May 2010, 09:36 Quote
Anything came after UT2K4 was an EPIC failure and that included GoW which port over to PC ran like sh*t.
gavomatic57 20th May 2010, 10:00 Quote
It has been said already, but piracy is being used as an excuse where lazyness is the real problem.

I've seen a number of tweets lately from Xbox gamers suggesting that the Call of Duty: Brown Oops trailer looks awesome - this is why Epic have moved to consoles - because it's a market that will buy literally any old rubbish.
general22 20th May 2010, 11:28 Quote
NuTech raises some interesting points and it is a good chance that they update their own game such as TF2 to keep people interested in Steam and attract new Steam users but it is a bit of a stretch to assume that this loses them money. No matter what the input of other game developers may be they do not work at Valve and they don't know the actual figures or the structure of the company.

I am a PC gamer but I am also studying software engineering and I have come to understand the developing large software products of any kind is not easy to do well. The people who have their money in these multi-million dollar game development projects want to see the best return on their money which is currently focusing on the console market and that is a fact of business.

The PC is still a big market but polishing the UI/Controls and ensuring stability across a wide variety of PC hardware takes more effort than making that experience polished on a static hardware configuration such as any of our current gen consoles. If you make more money on the console side of your business then that is where you are going to focus your efforts. The developers who then make a PC port as an after thought see the poor sales of their product and then are quick to blame piracy rather than looking at what made their game terrible (UT3, looking at you Epic).

But I don't see why people want developers to stay PC only. I mean they are companies which need to make money. What I don't understand from studios like Epic games is why they cannot do both PC and console.

TL;DR I tried to write too much while drunk and ended up with an undirected wall o' text
Bayaz 20th May 2010, 11:41 Quote
I think EPIC just want a bit of attention by releasing this statement and it looks like it worked
pimlicosound 20th May 2010, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
I've seen a number of tweets lately from Xbox gamers suggesting that the Call of Duty: Brown Oops trailer looks awesome - this is why Epic have moved to consoles - because it's a market that will buy literally any old rubbish.

Can you please explain what's wrong with the Black Ops trailer, and how it would be immeasurably more awesome if it were a PC exclusive? As an added challenge, please try to do it without using the words "lazy", "idiots", "morons", or any of the other insults thrown around here.
mastorofpuppetz 20th May 2010, 14:00 Quote
Everytime EPIC speaks it's annoying, OK, that's fine, we already know why you focus on Console, but there is no reason you can't do PC and console like most devs (Especially a once PC giant in epic), surely they are making enough money on console as it is.

Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.
feathers 20th May 2010, 16:06 Quote
Didn't EPIC make like one or two good games and a whole bunch of crappy ones for pc?
mastorofpuppetz 20th May 2010, 16:12 Quote
Yes, kind of like ID. Id has not made a good game in a decade.
Lockon Stratos 20th May 2010, 16:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime EPIC speaks it's annoying, OK, that's fine, we already know why you focus on Console, but there is no reason you can't do PC and console like most devs (Especially a once PC giant in epic), surely they are making enough money on console as it is.

Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.

bottomline is their lazy & they just dont want to do it. it costs money to hire additional programmers/testers to make sure that the games work on both platforms & they dont want to put in the extra cash. even if they were to port the game to pc it would still take programmers & testers.

but one of the worst things in PC gaming is console ports - a prime example of a console port is MW2 or Halo 2,

if they want to exit the PC platform that badly id wish they'd stfu n get on with it. nobody cares about them. UT09 will always be the best edition ive always played - oldskool, fast paced & utterly chaotic. I hate how slow multiplayer in the new games feel, & those of you that cant tell the difference really didnt play UT09 enough. I still class it as an amazing game with the amount of mods & maps you can still download for it. it will keep you entertained for hours. one of the best mods i have played with is the 'crotchshot' mod, i think it came out for UT03 & 04. it was so hilarious.
Mik3yB @ CCL 20th May 2010, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Yes, kind of like ID. Id has not made a good game in a decade.

ID's new game; Rage, is looking really quite....... "Epic" though.
somewhereoveryonda 20th May 2010, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.

yeah I agree.. It''s an absolute joke really. PC has to be the best platform for gaming.. so why the hell take the games away from PC!
mastorofpuppetz 20th May 2010, 16:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Yes, kind of like ID. Id has not made a good game in a decade.

ID's new game; Rage, is looking really quite....... "Epic" though.

Yes it is, but many games look great in trailers and the like, we shall see. I hope it is great. just saying it has been a really, really long time ID has made much of anything worth while.
Dragunover 20th May 2010, 17:35 Quote
Durr, crytek and epic make shitty games, people don't give two shits therefore don't pay for two shits.
BradShort 20th May 2010, 17:37 Quote
False Data everywhere... Console sales are huge partkly because people like the buffer of the second hand market. If the product is a short game, crap or they just dont like it, users can always trade it in, thus reducing the game cost in real terms. History has taught us PC gamers to be wary of new but unfinshed, buggy and lazy console ports so they seek demos or want to satisfy themselves the product is ok before purchasing, as there is NO second hand market for PC games. Most of the PC Gamers i know who have pirated games fall into two categories Data whores (who couldn't care what the game IS let alone knowing if they actually want it) and gamers wanting to try out a game to see if it is rig efficient.

I have not pirated a game in over 3 years now, and no intention to, as i do believe in supporting the game devs, but the quality of most PC games at the time of release is shocking. The excuse for testing on the miriad of platform setups is a valid one, but could be overcome with more standardised sys dev kits.
hardski 20th May 2010, 17:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
HUH? Almost every torrent have PC games already cracked and ready to play after DL. It is NOT easier to pirate on console, first you need to mod the actual hardware, Pc it's just a simple DL in most cases.

Also people have been perma banned from live, many don't want to take that risk.

Virtually all games have to be cracked on PC, i do all my gaming on this format.
Once your 360 has been flashed its a piece of cake. I have both console and PC but the excuse that piracy is only killing PC gaming is rubbish. I get 25 discs for £10 so if you play on LIVE and do get banned just buy a new console with the money you save from buying games lol. By the way just stealth patch your games before you burn and you wont get banned.
Warrior24_7 20th May 2010, 20:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime EPIC speaks it's annoying, OK, that's fine, we already know why you focus on Console, but there is no reason you can't do PC and console like most devs (Especially a once PC giant in epic), surely they are making enough money on console as it is.

Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.

What do you mean that there is no reason they can't do both, they do, do both. They're not console exclusive.
Fabou 20th May 2010, 21:14 Quote
The fact is that a game cost nearly the same price to the companies once it has been develloped. Therefore it is smarter to sell 100 at 20£ than 20 at 60£. That is what valve is doing. Then some companies prefer to sell 20 at 60£ and then they thy arn't making money and blame piracy.
But why would you pay a huge price a game with no supports (besides overpriced DLC). when you can have good game updated. Plus an updated multiplayer game means a game that is still played, wich is another good reason to invest in it.
Sloth 20th May 2010, 21:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowBlazed
Wow I just read this whole thing and have to say, Nutech read this article here so that you can also come to the same conclusion as me.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/02/20/valve-steam-is-making-us-rich/1



That conclusion is, you are an utter moron. I'm thinking you had 1 too many drinks with those devs and took permanent damage, its OK though: sane logical people are here to help. Really wish kylew kept posting because you were spot on with every single point, maybe nutech could've stopped spewing a bit earlier.

The one biggest thing I'd like to make fun of Nutech for is this:

Team Fortress 2 and Portal were practically FREE to begin with! All you had to do was buy Orange Box.

This is where he'd spew well it was only to get Steam subscribers which is only wrong because of the word only. Every person who buys a Valve game on PC is thus a Steam user. Valve made their millions off these games and can never lose that no matter how many updates they release.

What else are you going to claim is a loss leader... maybe Counter Strike: Source cause it was FREE too when you bought HL2? Please say you think that because its been in the top selling list on Steam for years now. Maybe HL2 itself was a loss leader, after all they REALLY wanted Steam subscribers back then right? lol.
I don't meant to beat a dead horse because that's just not nice, but feel you left out a very important part:
Quote:
By analysing the figures Valve's been able to make some interesting predictions too. A 10 percent price reduction creates an average income increase (not just in sales) of 35 percent, while a 25 percent discount gives an increase of 245 percent. 50 percent discounts create average increases of 320 percent, while a price slash of 75 percent off will push income up by a staggering 1470 percent.
Like the article says, that's an increase in income just to be clear. To answer any questions about what impact the lower price has, despite the increases sales. Though to be fair, this article never explicitly states that Valve is actually profitting off of anything. These 300+% increases in sales could just mean they aren't losing as much, though that is quite unlikely.

Interesting thing is that it seems to imply that Steam's success actually rides on the success of Valve's games. Could just be the wording and some info being left unrevealed, but the numbers show increases in Steam memberships as a result of people wanting Valve/Steamworks games during updates/sales. That goes against the idea that spreading Steam is the initial action and increased sales is the reaction.
kylew 20th May 2010, 21:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowBlazed
Wow I just read this whole thing and have to say, Nutech read this article here so that you can also come to the same conclusion as me.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/02/20/valve-steam-is-making-us-rich/1



That conclusion is, you are an utter moron. I'm thinking you had 1 too many drinks with those devs and took permanent damage, its OK though: sane logical people are here to help. Really wish kylew kept posting because you were spot on with every single point, maybe nutech could've stopped spewing a bit earlier.

The one biggest thing I'd like to make fun of Nutech for is this:

Team Fortress 2 and Portal were practically FREE to begin with! All you had to do was buy Orange Box.

This is where he'd spew well it was only to get Steam subscribers which is only wrong because of the word only. Every person who buys a Valve game on PC is thus a Steam user. Valve made their millions off these games and can never lose that no matter how many updates they release.

What else are you going to claim is a loss leader... maybe Counter Strike: Source cause it was FREE too when you bought HL2? Please say you think that because its been in the top selling list on Steam for years now. Maybe HL2 itself was a loss leader, after all they REALLY wanted Steam subscribers back then right? lol.

Why thank you! To be honest, I stopped replying to Nutech because it was getting very tiresome when he constantly and seemingly deliberately misunderstood what I was saying, and claimed that I was saying things that I wasn't.

He's seemingly been shut up though either way :D but yeah, I felt like I was wasting my time when everything I said was quoted out of context by him.

I'm not sure if he's an idiot, or a troll.
kylew 20th May 2010, 21:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I don't meant to beat a dead horse because that's just not nice, but feel you left out a very important part:

Like the article says, that's an increase in income just to be clear. To answer any questions about what impact the lower price has, despite the increases sales. Though to be fair, this article never explicitly states that Valve is actually profitting off of anything. These 300+% increases in sales could just mean they aren't losing as much, though that is quite unlikely.

Interesting thing is that it seems to imply that Steam's success actually rides on the success of Valve's games. Could just be the wording and some info being left unrevealed, but the numbers show increases in Steam memberships as a result of people wanting Valve/Steamworks games during updates/sales. That goes against the idea that spreading Steam is the initial action and increased sales is the reaction.

Absolutely no chance they're losing money on it.

That's where they've been very clever with Steam. Think about it, every Valve game they sell, costs them nothing but bandwidth.

The game as a "Product" doesn't exist to them until you purchase it, it's not like they've made up copies at a pressing plant and have to sell each copy to avoid making a loss.

In technically terms, you're basically getting a copy "made" for you each time you buy a new game. That ensures maximal profit while costing nothing but bandwith costs to supply the game. As for the profit on a per game basis, I think that's something that she be ignored, as they're not selling "SKUs", they seemingly look at their profit on a per title basis, it doesn't matter to them that they made £100,000 from 10,000 sales of the game, or 20,000 sales of the game, they still made £100,000 on the same product, which they made years ago and have more than made their costs back on developing it.

They made their costs on their games years ago, they made their profit on their games years ago too, any sale between 6 months after the game was released, until now, is huge profits.
Sloth 20th May 2010, 22:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Absolutely no chance they're losing money on it.

That's where they've been very clever with Steam. Think about it, every Valve game they sell, costs them nothing but bandwidth.

The game as a "Product" doesn't exist to them until you purchase it, it's not like they've made up copies at a pressing plant and have to sell each copy to avoid making a loss.

In technically terms, you're basically getting a copy "made" for you each time you buy a new game. That ensures maximal profit while costing nothing but bandwith costs to supply the game. As for the profit on a per game basis, I think that's something that she be ignored, as they're not selling "SKUs", they seemingly look at their profit on a per title basis, it doesn't matter to them that they made £100,000 from 10,000 sales of the game, or 20,000 sales of the game, they still made £100,000 on the same product, which they made years ago and have more than made their costs back on developing it.

They made their costs on their games years ago, they made their profit on their games years ago too, any sale between 6 months after the game was released, until now, is huge profits.
I totally agree that they're making a profit, only being a Devil's Advocate by pointing out that it never specifically says profit :D

It's just not entirely true that any money made from now on goes straight to their pockets as one huge net profit. As it says, sales go up 100% on updates and that increase almost certainly pays off any costs and then some, but there is a cost to the updates. Any game with patches and updates will have a continued cost to maintain until it is abandoned, unless it's run by a community of unpaid players (such as Counter Strike: Source and its vast pool of community developed content). Of course, without any actual numbers coming from Valve it's impossible to say how much an update costs and just how much of an actual profit they make in the end off of each update. And then there's the games like Half Life that aren't really updated because they're singleplayer, those are more like you were saying where anything after initial development is pure profit.
kylew 21st May 2010, 01:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Absolutely no chance they're losing money on it.

That's where they've been very clever with Steam. Think about it, every Valve game they sell, costs them nothing but bandwidth.

The game as a "Product" doesn't exist to them until you purchase it, it's not like they've made up copies at a pressing plant and have to sell each copy to avoid making a loss.

In technically terms, you're basically getting a copy "made" for you each time you buy a new game. That ensures maximal profit while costing nothing but bandwith costs to supply the game. As for the profit on a per game basis, I think that's something that she be ignored, as they're not selling "SKUs", they seemingly look at their profit on a per title basis, it doesn't matter to them that they made £100,000 from 10,000 sales of the game, or 20,000 sales of the game, they still made £100,000 on the same product, which they made years ago and have more than made their costs back on developing it.

They made their costs on their games years ago, they made their profit on their games years ago too, any sale between 6 months after the game was released, until now, is huge profits.
I totally agree that they're making a profit, only being a Devil's Advocate by pointing out that it never specifically says profit :D

It's just not entirely true that any money made from now on goes straight to their pockets as one huge net profit. As it says, sales go up 100% on updates and that increase almost certainly pays off any costs and then some, but there is a cost to the updates. Any game with patches and updates will have a continued cost to maintain until it is abandoned, unless it's run by a community of unpaid players (such as Counter Strike: Source and its vast pool of community developed content). Of course, without any actual numbers coming from Valve it's impossible to say how much an update costs and just how much of an actual profit they make in the end off of each update. And then there's the games like Half Life that aren't really updated because they're singleplayer, those are more like you were saying where anything after initial development is pure profit.

That's very true that it costs them to do updates, however I believe that with some of the updates, they're laying the groundwork for upcoming projects.

With the recent update to portal, moving it to the latest version of the source engine, I think part of the reason they did that was to lay the ground work for portal 2.
mastorofpuppetz 21st May 2010, 01:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior24_7
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime EPIC speaks it's annoying, OK, that's fine, we already know why you focus on Console, but there is no reason you can't do PC and console like most devs (Especially a once PC giant in epic), surely they are making enough money on console as it is.

Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.

What do you mean that there is no reason they can't do both, they do, do both. They're not console exclusive.

HUH? Show me where Gears of War 2 is on PC?
Warrior24_7 21st May 2010, 05:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior24_7
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime EPIC speaks it's annoying, OK, that's fine, we already know why you focus on Console, but there is no reason you can't do PC and console like most devs (Especially a once PC giant in epic), surely they are making enough money on console as it is.

Piracy is an issue, but blaming piracy is a load of BS.

What do you mean that there is no reason they can't do both, they do, do both. They're not console exclusive.

HUH? Show me where Gears of War 2 is on PC?
Just because Gears of War 2 & (maybe) 3 are Xbox 360 exclusive (a M$ decision), doesn't mean that they've stopped making PC games. UT III was cross platform and the new game Bullet Storm that looks pretty good, is Cross platform as well. Whats the difference between them and Crytek who has said and done the exact same thing?!! I don't get it?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1089297p1.html
Mithyx 22nd May 2010, 06:11 Quote
This news article should've had trollface.jpg as the picture.
Rebourne 24th May 2010, 05:12 Quote
They keep trying to blame their fans and it's not right. The market has moved towards consoles because they are cheaper and more accessible. They certainly have managed to alienate me, I've been quite offended by their comments and absolute **** support for Gears of War on PC, which I bought by the way. I won't be buying their products on PC or console and this just reinforces why.
Pooeypants 12th June 2010, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior24_7
Just because Gears of War 2 & (maybe) 3 are Xbox 360 exclusive (a M$ decision), doesn't mean that they've stopped making PC games. UT III was cross platform and the new game Bullet Storm that looks pretty good, is Cross platform as well. Whats the difference between them and Crytek who has said and done the exact same thing?!! I don't get it?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1089297p1.html
UT3 felt like a step backwards compared to its predecessors. I mean, if it were as good as 2k4 or 2k3 then why doesn't it still have a good MP base? I had the game preordered and as soon as I loaded up into the menu, I could feel the consolitis seeping through.

The jury is still out for Crytek but rest assured that if they gimp Crysis 2 due to console constraints, we'll be there to flame on.
knuck 12th June 2010, 20:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooeypants
UT3 felt like a step backwards compared to its predecessors. I mean, if it were as good as 2k4 or 2k3 then why doesn't it still have a good MP base? I had the game preordered and as soon as I loaded up into the menu, I could feel the consolitis seeping through.

The jury is still out for Crytek but rest assured that if they gimp Crysis 2 due to console constraints, we'll be there to flame on.

You couldn't be more right
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums