• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

RO for...console? (xbox 360/PS30

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Murphy said:
Here are some post-2004 games just so I don't look lazy:
The WoW expansions.
Guild Wars
Dawn of War - Dark Crusade and Soulstorm
Star Wars: Empire at War
Battlefield 2 - the console versions are all different games!
The Witcher
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Some future pc exclusives:
Diablo 3 is a pc exclusive (pc and mac) as far as I know and I'm convinced it's going to sell well.
StarCraft 2 is a pc exclusive (pc and mac) too and it's going to sell well.
Click to expand...
It's not worthless it just shows that I'm right, because as long as there is something to say it just proves my point. As for the games you listed there:
Stalker, BF2, Witcher and DoW yes that's true tho I dunno how well DoW sold but looking at all the add-ons it probably sold very well. As for Star Wars: Empire at War I can't really imagine it sold well because the game was rather mediocre and probably only sold many copies(if they did, do you have the figures maybe?) because of the license but that doesn't matter.

WoW, Guild Wars etc. are totally different stories. MMOs are a big part of what keeps PC Gaming alive/have just become a very big part of PC gaming. I'm not saying anything against that.

But one thing should be clear: The trend is clearly going towards multiplatform. And unless online distribution and outdated console graphics(in a few years maybe) show very big impacts that isn't going to change either. Btw sooner or later even MMOs will be developed for Consoles as well, for example Age of Conan(360 version already being worked on), Fable 2, etc.
And actually even classic PC-based RPGs like Sacred have gone multiplatform(sacred 2).

Also Blizzard is a bit different here because everyone buys blizzard games.

@AXEL did you ever play CoD4, BF:BC or anything comparable on a next-gen console? I can see nothing on your list that hasn't been done yet or couldn't be done easily.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#23
because as long as there is something to say it just proves my point.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Just because you think you know the reason for a game's success that doesn't change the fact that it was a success while it was still a pc-exclusive. So what it's an MMO. So what it just sold because it's about Star Wars. So what it was just a success because it's about WH40k. So what it just sold because it came with a free hooker.

Of course more platforms means more profit. But pc-exclusive does not equal financial failure. That's all I'm saying.
 
Upvote 0
#27
Murphy said:
No it doesn't. Just because you think you know the reason for a game's success that doesn't change the fact that it was a success while it was still a pc-exclusive. So what it's an MMO. So what it just sold because it's about Star Wars. So what it was just a success because it's about WH40k. So what it just sold because it came with a free hooker.

Of course more platforms means more profit. But pc-exclusive does not equal financial failure. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
For a modern day action or adventure game yes that's what it means most times nowadays.
 
Upvote 0
#28
DraKon2k said:
@AXEL did you ever play CoD4, BF:BC or anything comparable on a next-gen console? I can see nothing on your list that hasn't been done yet or couldn't be done easily.
Click to expand...


?????? played COD4 enough (i think outstanding graphics, piss poor realism compared to RO by the way)....there are no where near the amount of controls/commands in it, as well as almost every console shooter out there, as games like RO. as Axel points out, there simply aren't enough buttons/combinations to handle them on ANY console controller. done easily? until the is a console controller with at least 50 buttons, not gonna happen. and yes, all those 50* different commands? there are most certainly needed in any realist styl shooter.

*approx. not going to bother going through them all, but i believe there arfe even more than that anyway.
 
Upvote 0
#29
A modern action game has to bring forth impressive graphics and that's the downfall, because those are expensive to make. In RPGs or RTS games you can use the same stock content over and over but in action games that's not so feasible if you want to stay competetive. Big budget titles rule the genre and big budget titles can afford a crossplatform release and then benefit from it. (Financially) Big companies like id and Epic are going in that direction.

Smaller companies can't really play with the big players anymore because they simply lack the budget. If a game today is a pc-exclusive, one of the reasons for it is often that the devs couldn't even afford a multiplatform release. This lack in budget also shows in the quality of the game and/or the hype created for it and because of all that it fails. Not just because it was a pc-exclusive.

Sins of a Solar Empire is a game of a genre that isn't among the most popular, the graphics aren't the greatest compared to Crysis or something and it doesn't even have any system of copy protection. Plus it's a pc exclusive. But guess what, it sold quite well and the devs are happy with it!

If TWIs next game is going to be multiplayer only again this is going to help a lot when it comes to the budget. If there are, say, 20 maps that's enough for the release. 5-10 additional maps over several patches plus support for the mapping community to come up with the rest.
Compared to a singleplayer game that needs much more maps just to come to the 10-20 hours of gameplay value it should offer PLUS maps for the multiplayer side that's a lot of work and money that is saved so the required budget to get close to the quality of a blockbuster game is a lot smaller than that of another regular blockbuster.

With steam they don't need to rely on a greedy publisher either and they have a lot more freedom when chosing one for the boxed release.
They don't even need to develop their own engine or spend money on one because they already have the UE3. Some adjustments or modifications maybe, but they don't need to come up with a new one.

TWI can become one of those guerilla warfare type mini-companies that harass the big guys on the gaming market. They did this with RO:Ostfront and they will do it with Game 2.
 
Upvote 0
#30
Murphy said:
A modern action game has to bring forth impressive graphics and that's the downfall, because those are expensive to make. In RPGs or RTS games you can use the same stock content over and over but in action games that's not so feasible if you want to stay competetive. Big budget titles rule the genre and big budget titles can afford a crossplatform release and then benefit from it. (Financially) Big companies like id and Epic are going in that direction.

Smaller companies can't really play with the big players anymore because they simply lack the budget. If a game today is a pc-exclusive, one of the reasons for it is often that the devs couldn't even afford a multiplatform release. This lack in budget also shows in the quality of the game and/or the hype created for it and because of all that it fails. Not just because it was a pc-exclusive.

Sins of a Solar Empire is a game of a genre that isn't among the most popular, the graphics aren't the greatest compared to Crysis or something and it doesn't even have any system of copy protection. Plus it's a pc exclusive. But guess what, it sold quite well and the devs are happy with it!

If TWIs next game is going to be multiplayer only again this is going to help a lot when it comes to the budget. If there are, say, 20 maps that's enough for the release. 5-10 additional maps over several patches plus support for the mapping community to come up with the rest.
Compared to a singleplayer game that needs much more maps just to come to the 10-20 hours of gameplay value it should offer PLUS maps for the multiplayer side that's a lot of work and money that is saved so the required budget to get close to the quality of a blockbuster game is a lot smaller than that of another regular blockbuster.

With steam they don't need to rely on a greedy publisher either and they have a lot more freedom when chosing one for the boxed release.
They don't even need to develop their own engine or spend money on one because they already have the UE3. Some adjustments or modifications maybe, but they don't need to come up with a new one.

TWI can become one of those guerilla warfare type mini-companies that harass the big guys on the gaming market. They did this with RO:Ostfront and they will do it with Game 2.
Click to expand...
Well that's a well written text and with the most points you're right.

As for MP-only, idk about that.
While not doing SP might be a good choice budget-wise, it's a bad decision in terms of a) hype(or so to say interest created by media. Because if we're being honest RO:O neither got much coverage before it was released neither after it was released.)

and b) value/money because there's no way they could charge full price for a MP-only game. If you think how this time their budget was probably not much bigger than for RO:O(since they also won ##.000$ with MSU) plus console development+UE3 requiring bigger budget.
 
Upvote 0
#32
Unfortunatley the financial pressures/temptations to go "console" are great and this has led to the demise of several games and the hinderance of communities in recent years.

I would certainly understand if TWI released a console version. It makes good business sense and would make a lot of people buckets of cash. It is very hard to say no to that.

On the other side though, if there is a basterdized console version, I would hope that it is one of two things: either developed by another team and customized to consoles, independent of the PC version; or at worst a PC to console port. If there is any inkling of console to PC port, you might as well start headstone shopping now as far as RO and it's community exist today. I would not have a second thought of walking away from RO and not looking back.

Only time will tell and I would bet we know something sooner than later. I think the TWI team is far to savvy and committed to their vision to sell out ala Infinately Waiting and the crap-hole CoD series. I am going to hope for the best. We shall see.
 
Upvote 0
#33
i really hope they won't waste time on a single player, but it is probably neccesary for console games to sell.
anyways making a game like COD2 without singleplayer would have taken 10 guys about 5 months to build, with SP it's more like 50 guys 3 years.
and i only played all the COD games SP missions once, some maybe twice at best. so it's an incredible waste of time to make them, it obviously sells more copies. but i feel that a game like RO would stand for everything but scripted cinematic SP missions.

for me COD was dead the day i heard they were going for COD3 on console, then i started hating them for abandoning their community for more profit. it really started a war in the community and i left.
just hope that won't happen here
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#34
DraKon2k said:
Well that's a well written text and with the most points you're right.

As for MP-only, idk about that.
While not doing SP might be a good choice budget-wise, it's a bad decision in terms of a) hype(or so to say interest created by media. Because if we're being honest RO:O neither got much coverage before it was released neither after it was released.)

and b) value/money because there's no way they could charge full price for a MP-only game. If you think how this time their budget was probably not much bigger than for RO:O(since they also won ##.000$ with MSU) plus console development+UE3 requiring bigger budget.
Click to expand...
Those are unfortunately both true.

There are some more successful multiplayer only shooters around nowadays (Enemy Territory, Battlefield, Starwars Battlefront 2, the ones from Valve) so maybe those increased the acceptance for such games a bit more among the mainstream crowd.
If the bots work a heck of a lot better than in RO there could also be a pseudo singleplayer-mode where you just play a succession of multiplayer-maps, maybe with some singleplayer-exclusive extra objectives, like the so-called singleplayer in Starwars Battlefront 2.
It'll remain a problem though, I agree with that.

As for the budget, I think they have a bigger one available now because of the sales from Ostfront but who knows?
 
Upvote 0
#39
illinifan said:
why is it that a multiplayer only game isn't worth full price while a SP only game can be worth it? i mean mp only games have much more replay value

example: MGS4, while probably the best game ive ever played, is not worth 60 bucks as MGO sucks(imo) and i have no interest to play thru again
Click to expand...
Don't ask me it's just the way it is.
 
Upvote 0
#40
because SP games take alot longer to make and are alot more expensive, like i said with call of duty before. making the MP version only would not have taken long to do, their maps are so small and simple that i can remake them in 2-3 days each. it's the SP part that takes all the time and money to make
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu