Upvote
0
UE4 will "exclusively target consoles"
- Thread starter KrazyKraut
- Start date
Lol this reminds me of the evil capitalism thread. Epic is a private company, so how exactly has this to do with shareholders?
Fact is, consoles are selling more of these games atm than PCs do. And therefor it's only logical to say "consoles first". It's still about the customer, just that "we" aren't the primary ones anymore. Like 40 year olds watching MTV.
Upvote
0
Absolutley nothing new has come down the pipe in the last few years. Except for - wait for it... new business models in which to sell you the same old stuff. Digital distribution. Who benefits? You? Or the company that doesnt have to design a box and all the peripherals that usually went with them? Who gains more in this example? You? Sorry, its the company. Not only the developing company but the digital distributer as well - and you have physically less to show for it. Did you read that article DCode posted? What did you glean from it? I read about numbers and business models which is basically the only 'new' things that have shown up in the gaming world lately. We've been playing the same regurgitated games for the last 5 years at least, but now they have new ways of charging you more for the same. If you dont believe in being a smarter consumer, and that businesses arent forever trying to find new ways to market things to you, then.. what can I say?
Obviously I'm not talking about Epic when I mention shareholders, and obviously I've strayed from the thread topic - which isnt out of the ordinary for me. There's nothing poison about encouraging people to exercise their purchasing power and their own personal choice when it comes to game developing companies and their insistance on spending more time developing new business models than innovative change with the games themselves. What they consider innovative change in games is building them in such a way as to lock you in as a consumer - episodic releases anyone? Subscription gaming anyone? Microtransactions?
If you're anti-consumer and pro-business then good luck to ya. We inherently look at things differently. But I'm not mistaken when I say it appears as though you think they do these things (subscription gaming, episodic releases, microtransactions etc. etc.) for your benefit. I dont know about you, but I was perfectly happy and satisfied before digital distribution came along; and I'm pretty sure life would be just honkey-dorey without it.. I personally cant stand up and sing praises when I'm given less for more.. I cant stand with a beaming smile when I'm left in the market place to fend for myself - all the while I'm getting less for my buck; all the while some business exec is figuring out ways to get more from you without giving you anything new or valuable.
Trust me, I've worked for First Options of Chicago, Spear Leeds & Kellogg and Goldman Sachs. Some of my current clients are major financial institutions (Mellon Bank and Citigroup for example). I understand how markets work because I'm in it everyday; I study this subject on my free time; I have many years of background on trading floors. So what I like to do is give the teeny-boppers out there some insight into their own power as a consumer. They could actually have things MUCH nicer than they are if they just demanded it be so by NOT purchasing or validating their newest model with a purchase. Thats all.
Obviously I'm not talking about Epic when I mention shareholders, and obviously I've strayed from the thread topic - which isnt out of the ordinary for me. There's nothing poison about encouraging people to exercise their purchasing power and their own personal choice when it comes to game developing companies and their insistance on spending more time developing new business models than innovative change with the games themselves. What they consider innovative change in games is building them in such a way as to lock you in as a consumer - episodic releases anyone? Subscription gaming anyone? Microtransactions?
If you're anti-consumer and pro-business then good luck to ya. We inherently look at things differently. But I'm not mistaken when I say it appears as though you think they do these things (subscription gaming, episodic releases, microtransactions etc. etc.) for your benefit. I dont know about you, but I was perfectly happy and satisfied before digital distribution came along; and I'm pretty sure life would be just honkey-dorey without it.. I personally cant stand up and sing praises when I'm given less for more.. I cant stand with a beaming smile when I'm left in the market place to fend for myself - all the while I'm getting less for my buck; all the while some business exec is figuring out ways to get more from you without giving you anything new or valuable.
Trust me, I've worked for First Options of Chicago, Spear Leeds & Kellogg and Goldman Sachs. Some of my current clients are major financial institutions (Mellon Bank and Citigroup for example). I understand how markets work because I'm in it everyday; I study this subject on my free time; I have many years of background on trading floors. So what I like to do is give the teeny-boppers out there some insight into their own power as a consumer. They could actually have things MUCH nicer than they are if they just demanded it be so by NOT purchasing or validating their newest model with a purchase. Thats all.
Upvote
0
First of all, you are missing the point, a good console game and a good PC game are two different things, they are different audiences and people want different things out of the games, things that make sense on their chosen platform, and works well with their hardware and input systems, and for this reason, a straight port is never going to be good, it might work, but on the PC it will allways feel dumbed down, and if made PC first and then ported to console, it will feel cluttered and most likely too hard to control.
Cross platform titles are therefor good for buisness, but bad for the gamers, especially the PC gamers as they more often than not are the ones who get the ported version, and since developers know they can make a killing in the console market alone, the PC port seldomly gets the kind of attention from its creators as it should,
Second of all, the GOW pc port was far from succesfull, it is plagued by crash bugs on alot of PC hardware, countless people complain about savegames getting corrupted or deleted, or the game crashing at chapter 3, alot also complain about the game refusing to work at all.
And Epic has done nothing to fix this, nor will they ever by the looks of it.
Similar problems plague UT3, it is incompatible with alot of hardware (like X-FI cards with X-RAM), and alot of people experiance constant crashing, and again, they show no signs of wanting to fix this, infact they actively delete all threads on the matter from their forum.
It seems Epic is incapable of making the UE3 engine work reliably on the PC, or unwilling, the irony here is that its their engine, and others have ported to the PC just fine using the engine.
Needless to say, this does not bode well for any games they port to PC in the future, it may even be a bad omen for UE4 on the PC.
Upvote
0
the problem is not how the games runs, but how the game is designed, can you imagine a game like RO developed for a console and then ported to PC?, it simply wouldn't exist as it is, if the market shifts so much towards the consoles, its going to be really hard to find games like this one, or the original UT, and its quite hard already
Upvote
0
Not good, guys. Not good. Although there isn't really such a thing as "exclusive" in the gaming scene anymore. Most games will come out on most platforms eventually. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing if more and more developers put more focus on consoles, obviously.
Good posts, Rez, Grobut and Sheepdip.
Why is profit more important than quality and integrity?
Good posts, Rez, Grobut and Sheepdip.
Why is profit more important than quality and integrity?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Because the world is inhabited by whores. Whores for money.
Instead of making an adequate amount of money, and knowing they are doing some really good work, people would just like to make MORE money at the cost of their integrity.
When will developers learn that there is a gap between console gamers and PC gamers, yes some PC gamers have consoles, but hardly any console gamers go out and buy PC's. For the most part they are two entirely different audiences. You can't appeal to both without compromising, and given that the "less profitable" audience is the PC market then we lose out.
I was under the impression that the PC Gaming alliance was to promote PC gaming, how exactly are Epic doing that by aiming their next set of graphics tech at consoles (yes, PC at some point, but consoles FIRST?)
Plain and simple, they aren't.
As much as I appreciate them it'll be a sad day when Valve, Steam and the independent community are the only hope for PC gaming...
Instead of making an adequate amount of money, and knowing they are doing some really good work, people would just like to make MORE money at the cost of their integrity.
When will developers learn that there is a gap between console gamers and PC gamers, yes some PC gamers have consoles, but hardly any console gamers go out and buy PC's. For the most part they are two entirely different audiences. You can't appeal to both without compromising, and given that the "less profitable" audience is the PC market then we lose out.
I was under the impression that the PC Gaming alliance was to promote PC gaming, how exactly are Epic doing that by aiming their next set of graphics tech at consoles (yes, PC at some point, but consoles FIRST?)
Plain and simple, they aren't.
As much as I appreciate them it'll be a sad day when Valve, Steam and the independent community are the only hope for PC gaming...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Rein acknowledges that PC games have more sales longevity the console games. He says that console games are good for the big "hit" and massive short term sales.
But then he says PC are good for a lot of things, just not games.
In the past he has also stated that he fully supports and recognizes that user mods keep Epics games alive.
Hmmmm.....I bet he runs for President. He'd be an excellent candidate. He'll bend whichever way the wind blows him if he thinks its good for him....
Floyd (I guess that proves that money talks....and bull**** is free for the asking).
But then he says PC are good for a lot of things, just not games.
In the past he has also stated that he fully supports and recognizes that user mods keep Epics games alive.
Hmmmm.....I bet he runs for President. He'd be an excellent candidate. He'll bend whichever way the wind blows him if he thinks its good for him....
Floyd (I guess that proves that money talks....and bull**** is free for the asking).
Upvote
0
Maybe they are actually trying something new instead of being old conservative nazis who are exclusively "SIEG PC! HEIL PC! HEIL ALL PC FANS AND THEIR *** LICKERS!" ?
I know I am crossing the witch hunt line here, but even though shooters are often known of having more or less problems at consoles, how about those some shooters (yes, very small minority) that actually owns more than their PC ports or counterparts? Is it still the generic "omfg console crap exclusive **** **** consoles" crap?
Edit: And yes, this is bit weird example, but true.
If Ninja Gaiden (xbox) game says anything, the devs did something quite new. A game that's quite hard, challenging. What happened then? Nearly half of the people who bought it complained its too hard and impossible to play (which is plain BS tbh), yet the other half said that it is just an example that many games nowdays are just too easy. They did something new and what happened? They got all kinds of **** poured down their neck.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Like most reasonable people I don't have a problem with cross platform games if they're done right. And I can only think of a few times when that has happened.
Epic and the Unreal techs have been a bastion for good PC titles for years. As I said earlier in this thread no other tech is so widely used.
They have appeared in plenty of "next gen" console games, so they already enjoy use on several platforms.
If Epic is to promote PC gaming, and given that their current technology already has multi platform use, surely aiming their next gen of tech at consoles first is sending a clear message to anyone who plays PC games, or to anyone who's thinking of doing it that says
"This will not be our priority anymore"
I'm not being an old conservative Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei either.
Innovation rarely comes off on consoles, because people don't want it. Not to mention most of the time the innovation is in fact a re-hash of something a few years old (see Winbak/kill.switch and the latest constant stream of 3rd person/fps action games)
I'll be thoroughly surprised if the reasons behind this decision are because Epic wants to try something new. And if they do manage to do anything good - it'll be at the cost of the PC gamer.
Epic and the Unreal techs have been a bastion for good PC titles for years. As I said earlier in this thread no other tech is so widely used.
They have appeared in plenty of "next gen" console games, so they already enjoy use on several platforms.
If Epic is to promote PC gaming, and given that their current technology already has multi platform use, surely aiming their next gen of tech at consoles first is sending a clear message to anyone who plays PC games, or to anyone who's thinking of doing it that says
"This will not be our priority anymore"
I'm not being an old conservative Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei either.
Innovation rarely comes off on consoles, because people don't want it. Not to mention most of the time the innovation is in fact a re-hash of something a few years old (see Winbak/kill.switch and the latest constant stream of 3rd person/fps action games)
I'll be thoroughly surprised if the reasons behind this decision are because Epic wants to try something new. And if they do manage to do anything good - it'll be at the cost of the PC gamer.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Foreword: I have been a die-hard PC game fan since the mid 1990s, but I am slowly converting to consoles for reasons stated below...
I hate to say it, but can you really blame them? I don't want to be an alarmist, but PC gaming really is on the outs. The next generation of consoles will be able to do everything the PC can do and more. Just look at the minimum requirements for the PC version of Assassin's Creed, it's outrageous. The 360 can run the same game with half the power. People just absolutely cannot keep dumping $1,000 into new equipment every couple of years.
It's not a viable business any longer. It was a great business when system specs were moot and games weren't that graphically intensive. But now that every game released is expected to look better and be bigger than any other game before it, consumers just can't keep up.
The only solution is to sit all PC hardware manufacturers (Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI) and PC game developers & publishers down, have a meeting, form a "PC Gaming Hardware Commission", where all companies and developers agree to a set standard of system specs for 3-4 years. All companies make their products for those system specs until the time frame is up, they reconvene and decide the next set of hardware. Of course, this will never happen because the companies have to keep making revenue by competing for making the greatest and latest. But the jump in system technology would be so much greater if they developed a new graphics card over four years, rather than eight months. Not only will this eliminate the need to upgrade every year, but will reduce the amount of bugs in games since system standards will be set up, relatively the same.
Yes, Epic owes everything to the PC gamers, but they're a business after all, and why bother spending years fixing bugs caused by people's different hardware configs when they can have a relatively bug-free game on a console, and now, still be able to patch it if needed and add new content? PC is just not a viable market any longer from a business perspective. I hate to say it, I really do, but it's true.
I hate to say it, but can you really blame them? I don't want to be an alarmist, but PC gaming really is on the outs. The next generation of consoles will be able to do everything the PC can do and more. Just look at the minimum requirements for the PC version of Assassin's Creed, it's outrageous. The 360 can run the same game with half the power. People just absolutely cannot keep dumping $1,000 into new equipment every couple of years.
It's not a viable business any longer. It was a great business when system specs were moot and games weren't that graphically intensive. But now that every game released is expected to look better and be bigger than any other game before it, consumers just can't keep up.
The only solution is to sit all PC hardware manufacturers (Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI) and PC game developers & publishers down, have a meeting, form a "PC Gaming Hardware Commission", where all companies and developers agree to a set standard of system specs for 3-4 years. All companies make their products for those system specs until the time frame is up, they reconvene and decide the next set of hardware. Of course, this will never happen because the companies have to keep making revenue by competing for making the greatest and latest. But the jump in system technology would be so much greater if they developed a new graphics card over four years, rather than eight months. Not only will this eliminate the need to upgrade every year, but will reduce the amount of bugs in games since system standards will be set up, relatively the same.
Yes, Epic owes everything to the PC gamers, but they're a business after all, and why bother spending years fixing bugs caused by people's different hardware configs when they can have a relatively bug-free game on a console, and now, still be able to patch it if needed and add new content? PC is just not a viable market any longer from a business perspective. I hate to say it, I really do, but it's true.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Well, legal p0rn maybe, but it isn't half as arousing without breaking international copyright law!
Upvote
0
No need to answer a baseless question.
There have been some very innovative console games in the past years. I don't play them because I don't own a console, but I see and read about them. And PC games are no more innovative, I'd even say the PC gaming industry is on an all-time crative low and for quite some time now. The only things that really go off are sequels, clones or MMORPGs. There's some exceptions but not many really.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
except downloading pr0n
My PS3 can download 80 gigs of pr0n if I wanted it to.
On topic: I'm guessing Epic isn't making any games for PC anytime soon then right?
Upvote
0
I hate to say it but I blame the severe dip in PC gaming on stupid cross platform development.
In a very short period games went from being platform exclusive to being on GameCube, XBox PS2 and PC. Even as far back as when HALO was announced as XBox the debut you knew it was bad news.
I can't abandon PC gaming, because I simply will not accept, or adjust to the general standards of most console only games.
For so long development strived for realism, realistic textures, environments, materials, character animations. Instead of rendered cutscenes we were getting ingame ones, quality voice acting, lip sync etc.
This wall seemed to have been hit where all everyone wants is pretty much what they expect from the next big blockbuster movie.
The growth of multiplayer aspects hasn't helped either, big developers and big name games are focussing on a fairly generic multiplayer experience that appeals to john everyman where as before you had a broad variety of game styles, gameplay and gamers with plenty of games to appeal to each. Gaming is becoming expensive and standardised. And it's killing it for anyone who is used to what it was.
In a very short period games went from being platform exclusive to being on GameCube, XBox PS2 and PC. Even as far back as when HALO was announced as XBox the debut you knew it was bad news.
I can't abandon PC gaming, because I simply will not accept, or adjust to the general standards of most console only games.
For so long development strived for realism, realistic textures, environments, materials, character animations. Instead of rendered cutscenes we were getting ingame ones, quality voice acting, lip sync etc.
This wall seemed to have been hit where all everyone wants is pretty much what they expect from the next big blockbuster movie.
The growth of multiplayer aspects hasn't helped either, big developers and big name games are focussing on a fairly generic multiplayer experience that appeals to john everyman where as before you had a broad variety of game styles, gameplay and gamers with plenty of games to appeal to each. Gaming is becoming expensive and standardised. And it's killing it for anyone who is used to what it was.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bingo, since allmost nobody makes PC games anymore, just rekackaged console games, why should people bother investing in a gaming rig? its cheaper to just buy the friggen console that the games where made for in the first place, they are even more fun to play like this because this is what they where playtested and balanced for!
And then the "industry" whines about PC sales, proclaiming that the PC is dead.. wow, bravo Mr. Holmes, you have spend the last many years starving it to death, and now it looks dead? i am gopsmacked! how could that possibly be!?
Upvote
0