StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Alyeska wrote:
Console prices are higher because of the console tax. You have to pay approximately $10 to publish a title to that console.

Hold on, are you saying that there is ZERO exchange of money between a PC Developer and Microsoft?

Individually? It would certainly be possible. But on a cross platform title, that development cost disappears. The core technology remains relatively consistent. Cross development of the same game and engine drives the total cost down. Of all games, cross platform releases should have the lowest costs.

It drives down some cost, but then, PC Gamers typically get free DLC, console gamers don't.

Completely irrelevant.

Nonsense. Of course it's relevant. If the cost of PC game development has gone up over the past decade(through normal inflation if nothing elese) it's asinine to nod and accept that the publisher should take a smaller and smaller profit margin.

PC games do not have a console tax.

Again, you're saying that there is ZERO exchange of money between Publishers and, say, Microsoft?

PC games that are due to cross platform development have even lower development costs. Your average new title release is typically $40-$50. Yes, new title releases can and do still release at $40. I still pick up the occasional new PC title for $40. PC releases should always sell for $10 less than the console release of that same game. I bought Flashpoint 2 for $40. When Saints Row 2 released on PC, it released for $40.

Then those publishers made a decision to take a lower profit margin. Or they are much smaller publishers with less overhead. Or they are "easily moddable"(code for :"we'll let the community do DLC for us")

Would I pay money for a handful of MP maps? Never. I simply don't care for the maps enough to pay for them, at all. On this issue, making them DLC is a bit of an issue. It goes against the PC standard by a long degree. EA somewhat attempted this with their BF2 booster packs. But then again they actually provided some significant content. And even then those booster packs ended up being a failure. PC players by and large will not buy multiplayer content. You release the MP maps as DLC and it will divide the community. Suddenly people can't play together. Most will not buy them. And with an even smaller fan base, it decreases replayability.

Now, if Activision considered serious extra content for DLC, thats a different story. COOP missions, large map packs, new guns and perks. Start adding combination's of those together, and now your talking about something.

My point is that a lot of developers/publishers hand out some DLC for free that Console Gamers have to pay for. Would you be willing to pay less for the original game for paying out on new content?

Lonestar wrote: Hold on, are you saying that there is ZERO exchange of money between a PC Developer and Microsoft?

Yes. Unless you want to get a Games for Windows certificate, you do not need to pay MS anything to publish on their platform.

However, it is incorrect that PC development is automatically cheaper than console. Against buying dev kits, which can range into the several thousands and dealing with the consoles, there is that every PC game needs to be tested on far greater hardware configurations. The average test lab has anything from a few dozen on the lower end to a few thousand for publishers like MS. This is in addition to open beta testing (for developers that go down this path). These hardware configurations are a pain with several games having multiple code paths for different CPUs and different GPUs.

Indeed, I had the problem with the original Modern Warfare where my drive wouldn't read a certain sector of the disc (and indeed, this problem has occurred on multiple machines with multiple copies of the game). So I had to go with a bottle of rum solution just so I could install the game.

At least on a 360 or PS3 the devs know exactly what they have to work with.

And yet now that they know they can patch games through the internet more and more console games are coming out with major bugs when they used to be bug free. As an especially glaring example see Fallout 3 which was nearly unplayable on consoles. It was buggy as hell on PC, but at least you could use the ingame console commands to undo most of the problems and not just get fucked when a character refused to spawn.

Ace Pace wrote:
However, it is incorrect that PC development is automatically cheaper than console. Against buying dev kits, which can range into the several thousands and dealing with the consoles, there is that every PC game needs to be tested on far greater hardware configurations. The average test lab has anything from a few dozen on the lower end to a few thousand for publishers like MS. This is in addition to open beta testing (for developers that go down this path). These hardware configurations are a pain with several games having multiple code paths for different CPUs and different GPUs.

That's a set cost Ace Pace. It's not as if your throw the lab out after each game. Quality testing is done on a as needed rent setup. As part of EA the publisher will provide the testers(Paid about 11$ an hour) who sit there for hours on end playing the game through over and over again on multiple different systems, OS setups. While monitoring software is tracking them. For a smaller game company this can be kinda of expensive(Running into the tens of thousands of dollars per game) but for bigger published games like MW2 it costs them much less since EA maintains the cost of maintaining these testers(They produce far more than enough games to keep them busy year round) it still ends up being cheaper than console development since they have to buy a Dev Kit per coder or operate some sort of share system and computers are much cheaper. Engines costs are identical between PC's and Consoles since most of the same popular engines have Console Equivalents or are out and out PC game engines which transfer easy to PS3 & Xbox.

Controlling testing costs is also why smaller companies often run large public beta tests and even semi public alfa tests.

Lonestar wrote:(through normal inflation if nothing else)

This brings up a very important point: PC games have actually gotten cheaper to buy over the years, specifically because of inflation. If you bought Half-Life back when it came out using 2009 dollars, you'd spend a little over $66. There is absolutely no reason why PC game prices shouldn't keep pace with inflation, just like the prices for everything else do. In fact, doing so could make developers and publishers more amenable to riskier ideas and games, because they need to sell fewer copies to make a good profit.

Sea Skimmer wrote:And yet now that they know they can patch games through the internet more and more console games are coming out with major bugs when they used to be bug free. As an especially glaring example see Fallout 3 which was nearly unplayable on consoles. It was buggy as hell on PC, but at least you could use the ingame console commands to undo most of the problems and not just get fucked when a character refused to spawn.

Uh. Console games have never been bug free. The only real difference is now they can fix the problem later on without necessarily having to issue a new copy of the game entirely.

Most consoles never go online anyway; there is no expectation that every customer will be able to patch their games on console. I think it's like 20-30% of 360s that ever appear on Live, for instance.

starslayer wrote:

Lonestar wrote:(through normal inflation if nothing else)

This brings up a very important point: PC games have actually gotten cheaper to buy over the years, specifically because of inflation. If you bought Half-Life back when it came out using 2009 dollars, you'd spend a little over $66. There is absolutely no reason why PC game prices shouldn't keep pace with inflation, just like the prices for everything else do. In fact, doing so could make developers and publishers more amenable to riskier ideas and games, because they need to sell fewer copies to make a good profit.

I was thinking that myself. Why should PC Games devs stick to some arbitary price ceiling of $50? Just because it is standard for the past decade?

Still on the topic, IW definitely told those living in areas with shit internet connection to fuck ourselves. Most of the time, on L4D, I get paired to some shitty host where my ping is 300 and above from matchmaking. (I'm living in Malaysia mind, so even Aussie host give me 200ms pings). I resorted to just joining friends after awhile. At least now we can choose a server to play on, instead of being arbitrarily assigned to a random host.

I have little faith that "IWNet" would actually do better in terms of matchmaking.

As I was

The PC Version really will be a direct console port. The ONLY FUCKING CHANGES have to do with controls.

9v9 player limits. Jesus Christ.

"It's not balanced for lean".

What a bunch of bullshit artists. Oh well, I've never actually bought a Call of Duty game in my life apart from the first one, and I don't plan to start now. Their single player is over in a matter of moments and I don't care about multiplayer.

Holy shit, 9v9 on a PC game? Christ. I'm surprised they can't just change the max player setting; perhaps the 'like console experience' server system is terrible.

It's almost as if they think that pissing off PC gamers would lead to a increase in the sales for the console version of MW 2.

I hate how the rise in console market resulted in PC games being dumbed down.

Well I certainly feel vindicated in my assumptions. Fuckthem and fuck every game they ever make again. Hell if I really even care anyway, because I’ve never exactly believed this game was going to be any great worth 50 dollar improvement over CoD4 anyway. It looked like it'd be CoD4 with scuba diving and not even the Russian underwater assault rifle to go with it.

You know, I always bought CoD for the singleplayer and stayed for the multiplayer. Now though? The SP looks great for sure (THEY BLEW UP THE FUCKING ISS!). But will this be the kind of console port (like FEAR 2) that also fucks me for not having a widescreen monitor? Given how much fuckage they're including on all the other fronts I wouldn't be surprised.

This game is slipping off my purchase list fast.

Take a look at what IW has to say about MW 2 not being a console port :

Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

Seems like having mouse controls means your game isn't a direct port.

Link

That aside, I am pissed with all the console fanboys gloating over PC gamers and saying that PC gamers should join their club, and acting as if they have won some sort of victory over PC gamers.

The sad part for me is... spoiler footage of the single-player has pissed me off more than ANYTHING about the PC version did. Of course, I'm not talking about the now-infamous airport level... which, incidentally, on the console did NOT have the disclaimer screen before playing. Perhaps it only appears the first time?

Mackey-IW wrote:No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control

This alone sold the game for me.

Sadly, playing Project Sylpheed (Xbox 360) only confirmed what I had thought for months now... I can't manipulate a thumbstick or analog stick precisely enough to justify the console version of MW2, so for better or worse, unless there's a 360 or PS3 mouse... it's the PC for me. Not even the lack of dedicated servers or the 9v9 map sizes can calibrate my thumbs' fine motor control that much.

Have to say, from here there's at least some bemusement about the level of rage, not just ignorance or gloating (who are we kidding, both are there).

I was never very interested in MW2 anyway, but the ludicrous arbitrary limitations on the PC version are pretty vexing.

I have a feeling that this is pure politics - I expect a few months after the release of the PC version Infinity Ward/Activision will release a statement claiming piracy ruined the sales of MW2 on PC and hence they won't be supporting the platform in future. They are just forging their justifications for a decision they have probably already made.

Aaron Ash wrote:I was never very interested in MW2 anyway, but the ludicrous arbitrary limitations on the PC version are pretty vexing.

I have a feeling that this is pure politics - I expect a few months after the release of the PC version Infinity Ward/Activision will release a statement claiming piracy ruined the sales of MW2 on PC and hence they won't be supporting the platform in future. They are just forging their justifications for a decision they have probably already made.

It's win-win for them if that's their ideal. If enough people buy the PC version to make a decent profit, they know that people will take this insane shit with a smile. If enough people do not buy, then your point is what they will claim.

It's rather disgusting given the sheer hooplah they've made towards the game and how much they will likely make.

My question is how long until PC's being PC's an unlocked version of MW2 released which does away with Player Caps. (FYI back when BF2 hit, turns out you could pretty easily make a server with up to 256 players and the net code handled it fine even if the maps did not, however most servers could not but we saw a month of 128 player servers before the next patch broke it)

Depending on how similar to the MW1 netcode it is, you could see 64 or 96 player servers on cracked versions of the game or even "unofficial" patches for the game.

Well, the article even said 'This will force PC players to either accept it or play cracked pirated versions that remove the stupid'.

I'm not wasting my time. I'm not even going to waste my time pirating it. I'm profoundly disgusted right now with Infinity Ward, and I still play MW1 on at worst a weekly basis. That's sixty bucks of my money back in my pocket, I suppose. Fuck them, fuck consoles.

I'm a console as well as a PC owner and must admit that I'm bloody disgusted at the sheer glee some of the console owners are displaying in some of these discussions, it almost makes me ashamed to admit that I own a console.

I honestly wonder if the game will now be loaded up with ghetto trash-talking eight year olds.

That behaviour hints at one of the major reasons that probably motivates the recent push in console gaming: Kids whose parents buy them everything they want, and more importantly, who don't have the patience to question a release they don't like, or to shop around for alternatives (or modding). Also, Kids who buy all the hype and have zero critical thinking (and haven't played older games that are essentially the same, so the generic drivel being offered is new to them).

In other news, the sky is blue.


But, to be fair, the article from arstechnica.com rubbed me the wrong way as being horribly biased and inflamatory, trying to get PC users riled up.

Slacker wrote:Fuck them, fuck consolesconsole ports.

How are consoles at fault? It's the developers being a bunch of lazy douches. That being said, 9 v 9 multi is shitty whether for PC or for console.