In addition to EA... (Paragraphical parenthetical: I hope everyone reading this is already thinking twice before giving any dollars to EA, based on their lack of post-release support and quashing of design creativity by releasing sequel after sequel and charging money for expansions which include fixes that are not rolled back into the original game. There's plentiful other damning evidence against them out there on the web, and you can find it without looking too hard. Problem is, they're such a huge publisher with so many acquisitions lately that it's hard to avoid buying ANYTHING from them, but I do my best.)
Now there's Sierra, who are not releasing a patch to Homeworld 2 to fix some ugly 3D rendering issues and balance problems in multiplayer. Thanks, Sierra. It's too bad they can't go back in time and fix the horrendous single player level design with some playtesting by normal humans. Of course, even if they could do that, they probably wouldn't.
On the flip side, Microsoft Games just seems to keep getting better and better. Particularly some of their latest Xbox releases -- Crimson Skies and Links 2004 have gotten raves from the press and are tremendously fun to play. Crimson Skies in particular is a heroic victory of epic proportions, given that the game stunk to high heaven a little over a year ago, but Microsoft saw the potential, and reworked it with a big shake-up in the development team. Of course, they're also somewhat responsible for Halo PC...
[quote] In addition to EA... (Paragraphical parenthetical: I hope everyone reading this is already thinking twice before giving any dollars to EA, based on their lack of post-release support and quashing of design creativity by releasing sequel after sequel and charging money for expansions which include fixes that are not rolled back into the original game. There's plentiful other damning evidence against them out there on the web, and you can find it without looking too hard. Problem is, they're such a huge publisher with so many acquisitions lately that it's hard to avoid buying ANYTHING from them, but I do my best.)
Now there's Sierra, who are not releasing a patch to Homeworld 2 to fix some ugly 3D rendering issues and balance problems in multiplayer. Thanks, Sierra. It's too bad they can't go back in time and fix the horrendous single player level design with some playtesting by normal humans. Of course, even if they could do that, they probably wouldn't.
[/quote] Are you aware of this or is your point in spite of what's said there? It seems that Sierra doesn't want to do a patch but Relic does, and they're going to get it out regardless. Just curious on what exactly you're reacting to.
Now there's Sierra, who are not releasing a patch to Homeworld 2
to fix some ugly 3D rendering issues and balance problems in
multiplayer. Thanks, Sierra. It's too bad they can't go back in
time and fix the horrendous single player level design with some
playtesting by normal humans. Of course, even if they could do
that, they probably wouldn't.
Sierra is already on my list of "don't bother" game companies, largely due to the fact that they decided long ago not to support the Mac market, which apparently includes not bothering to find companies to port their popular games to the Mac.
Are you aware of this or is your point in spite of what's said
there? It seems that Sierra doesn't want to do a patch but Relic
does, and they're going to get it out regardless. Just curious
on what exactly you're reacting to.
I don't fault Relic for the Homeworld 2 snafu. They've been victims all along. Frankly it's amazing they even got the thing published. Sierra has screwed the pooch over and over again with this game (first preannouncing it before they had a real contract, then rushing it, and now not wanting to patch it).
I don't fault Relic for the Homeworld 2 snafu. They've been
victims all along. Frankly it's amazing they even got the thing
published. Sierra has screwed the pooch over and over again with
this game (first preannouncing it before they had a real
contract, then rushing it, and now not wanting to patch it).
Sounds like another game we all know and hated...The Take 2 fiasco with Myth III...I thought that it was just an isolated thing, a company rushing a game out the door regardless of the fact that it is a piece of crap that just needs a little tweeking and polishing...Guess that problem is industry-wide
All of these complaints are valid, but also linked.
PC games need patches. Publishers don't support the games that are released. Publishers don't support the MacOS. M/S is doing well with the XBOX releases at least.
These are good examples of why PC games suck to develope for and why Console games (XBOX included) are the market share.
For consoles, you make a game for the mass market that is to be played on a SINGLE extremely predictable piece of hardware (I cannot emphasize enough how important this single fact is). It is marketed to a predictable base, and is easy to give to someone as a gift without much thought. You NEVER make patches.
Talking to people that have made PC or Mac titles and now work on console titles (Bungie staff included) NO ONE wants to go back. It is a sad painful world. The games on PCs are MUCH deeper and involving, with greater EVERYTHING, they are my personal favorite... but they are nothing but pain to create and unless they are a remarkable standout or derivative of a console hit (Vice City) they don't make shit for money. Ratchet and Clank is a MODERATE hit in the PS2 world with more than 2 million sold. For perspective.. Myth I sold ~250,000, Myth 2 ~125,000.
You guys love a system that is a-hurtin now.
I mean, hell.. a decent graphics card alone costs the same as a whole console... Gamecubes are selling at 99 bucks this holiday season.
I wish I could bear better news, but from my point of view, the EA thing is predictable, and from their financial point of view, very understandable. Get mad.. boycot.. do what you will... you are a diehard breed and diehards will put up with a remarkable amount of crap while still buying less than perfect products. How much money would you be willing to shell out for support if you only sold a half million copies, and the consumers demanded endless patches for free?
A rough world.
If more PC games moved off of shelves, I can guarantee you they would be more interested in supporting the product.
Just my thoughts.. I'm probably way wrong... -Santa
PS: *shameless plug* Ratchet and Clank:Going Commando JUST got released. We are getting VERY high scores and reviews (Top on this list.. composite score of 25 individual reviews: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/default_PS2/7 ), so maybe check it out or rent it or something...
I don't care how easy or hard it is to develop for a PC or a console. If you're going to put out a product, put out one that works, or fix it until it does.
Sales numbers are irrelevant. There is room in the industry for PC as well as console titles. Hell, people make money selling Visual Basic programs that drive lighting systems for theatrical stages for crissakes. How many copies do you think they sell?
The problem is that megapublishers snap up these small game studios which COULD be profitable, IF they stayed small. The big publishers then gut them and treat them as if they were developing for consoles. It's a different world. Margins are different, as you say.
If a publisher isn't happy with the margins, they shouldn't agree to publish the game in the first place. The answer is not to screw consumers.
Well.. many of these publishers try out the vomit theory of marketing. You know.. throw crap at the wall.. see what sticks... hope the investors are happy. Same thing happens when movie studios try and make games.. they turn into the same crappy stuff they toss on the movie screen.
All companies should put out good products. *shrug*
Anyhoo..
-sh
I don't care how easy or hard it is to develop for a PC or a
console. If you're going to put out a product, put out one that
works, or fix it until it does.
Sales numbers are irrelevant. There is room in the industry for
PC as well as console titles. Hell, people make money selling
Visual Basic programs that drive lighting systems for theatrical
stages for crissakes. How many copies do you think they sell?
The problem is that megapublishers snap up these small game
studios which COULD be profitable, IF they stayed small. The big
publishers then gut them and treat them as if they were
developing for consoles. It's a different world. Margins are
different, as you say.
If a publisher isn't happy with the margins, they shouldn't
agree to publish the game in the first place. The answer is not
to screw consumers.
Yep, the economies of the gaming industry are pretty clear
The fact that you sell into a single hardware platform with an established user base that is substantially bigger than the gaming PC and Mac community really means that anyone in their right mind with a game idea that is suitable for consoles is going to go there first.
One, unchanging graphics hardware standard to optimize to instead of two different GPUs with 4-6 flavors of each in 'modern' boxes.
A single CPU with known performance characteristics instead of two (Intel/AMD) or four (Moto/IBM) with a range of performance specifications that range with an factor of 3 in boxes that are bein sold today, let alone legacy gear.
From an economic point of view, the standard PC game is a bad idea for the big players. Of course they will continue to exist as there are some genres that make a lot more sense to play with a keyboard and mouse, but let's face it, Windows games are now a niche and getting smaller with every new PS2, XBox and GameCube sold.
Of course, right now XBox and GameCube are still getting bashed by the PS2 when it comes to both sales numbers and established base, so unless you get a pile of cash from M$, have a license with Nintendo (the kids are addicted to Mario Kart, Double Dash right now) or really need a hard disk that the XBox promises as a standard, your probable first choice platform is going to be PS2.
As for R&C:GC, it's already on my 'gonna get it' list.
Comments
Now there's Sierra, who are not releasing a patch to Homeworld 2 to fix some ugly 3D rendering issues and balance problems in multiplayer. Thanks, Sierra. It's too bad they can't go back in time and fix the horrendous single player level design with some playtesting by normal humans. Of course, even if they could do that, they probably wouldn't.
On the flip side, Microsoft Games just seems to keep getting better and better. Particularly some of their latest Xbox releases -- Crimson Skies and Links 2004 have gotten raves from the press and are tremendously fun to play. Crimson Skies in particular is a heroic victory of epic proportions, given that the game stunk to high heaven a little over a year ago, but Microsoft saw the potential, and reworked it with a big shake-up in the development team. Of course, they're also somewhat responsible for Halo PC...
C's Site o' Fun!
[quote]
In addition to EA... (Paragraphical parenthetical: I hope
everyone reading this is already thinking twice before giving
any dollars to EA, based on their lack of post-release support
and quashing of design creativity by releasing sequel after
sequel and charging money for expansions which include fixes
that are not rolled back into the original game. There's
plentiful other damning evidence against them out there on the
web, and you can find it without looking too hard. Problem is,
they're such a huge publisher with so many acquisitions lately
that it's hard to avoid buying ANYTHING from them, but I do my
best.)
Now there's Sierra, who are not releasing a patch to Homeworld 2
to fix some ugly 3D rendering issues and balance problems in
multiplayer. Thanks, Sierra. It's too bad they can't go back in
time and fix the horrendous single player level design with some
playtesting by normal humans. Of course, even if they could do
that, they probably wouldn't.
[/quote]
Are you aware of this or is your point in spite of what's said there? It seems that Sierra doesn't want to do a patch but Relic does, and they're going to get it out regardless. Just curious on what exactly you're reacting to.
Sierra is already on my list of "don't bother" game companies, largely due to the fact that they decided long ago not to support the Mac market, which apparently includes not bothering to find companies to port their popular games to the Mac.
I don't fault Relic for the Homeworld 2 snafu. They've been victims all along. Frankly it's amazing they even got the thing published. Sierra has screwed the pooch over and over again with this game (first preannouncing it before they had a real contract, then rushing it, and now not wanting to patch it).
Sounds like another game we all know and hated...The Take 2 fiasco with Myth III...I thought that it was just an isolated thing, a company rushing a game out the door regardless of the fact that it is a piece of crap that just needs a little tweeking and polishing...Guess that problem is industry-wide
McGyver
All of these complaints are valid, but also linked.
PC games need patches.
Publishers don't support the games that are released.
Publishers don't support the MacOS.
M/S is doing well with the XBOX releases at least.
These are good examples of why PC games suck to develope for and why Console games (XBOX included) are the market share.
For consoles, you make a game for the mass market that is to be played on a SINGLE extremely predictable piece of hardware (I cannot emphasize enough how important this single fact is). It is marketed to a predictable base, and is easy to give to someone as a gift without much thought. You NEVER make patches.
Talking to people that have made PC or Mac titles and now work on console titles (Bungie staff included) NO ONE wants to go back. It is a sad painful world. The games on PCs are MUCH deeper and involving, with greater EVERYTHING, they are my personal favorite... but they are nothing but pain to create and unless they are a remarkable standout or derivative of a console hit (Vice City) they don't make shit for money. Ratchet and Clank is a MODERATE hit in the PS2 world with more than 2 million sold. For perspective.. Myth I sold ~250,000, Myth 2 ~125,000.
You guys love a system that is a-hurtin now.
I mean, hell.. a decent graphics card alone costs the same as a whole console... Gamecubes are selling at 99 bucks this holiday season.
I wish I could bear better news, but from my point of view, the EA thing is predictable, and from their financial point of view, very understandable. Get mad.. boycot.. do what you will... you are a diehard breed and diehards will put up with a remarkable amount of crap while still buying less than perfect products. How much money would you be willing to shell out for support if you only sold a half million copies, and the consumers demanded endless patches for free?
A rough world.
If more PC games moved off of shelves, I can guarantee you they would be more interested in supporting the product.
Just my thoughts.. I'm probably way wrong...
-Santa
PS: *shameless plug* Ratchet and Clank:Going Commando JUST got released. We are getting VERY high scores and reviews (Top on this list.. composite score of 25 individual reviews: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/default_PS2/7 ), so maybe check it out or rent it or something...
I don't care how easy or hard it is to develop for a PC or a console. If you're going to put out a product, put out one that works, or fix it until it does.
Sales numbers are irrelevant. There is room in the industry for PC as well as console titles. Hell, people make money selling Visual Basic programs that drive lighting systems for theatrical stages for crissakes. How many copies do you think they sell?
The problem is that megapublishers snap up these small game studios which COULD be profitable, IF they stayed small. The big publishers then gut them and treat them as if they were developing for consoles. It's a different world. Margins are different, as you say.
If a publisher isn't happy with the margins, they shouldn't agree to publish the game in the first place. The answer is not to screw consumers.
_/ C's Site o' Fun!
Well.. many of these publishers try out the vomit theory of marketing. You know.. throw crap at the wall.. see what sticks... hope the investors are happy. Same thing happens when movie studios try and make games.. they turn into the same crappy stuff they toss on the movie screen.
All companies should put out good products. *shrug*
Anyhoo..
-sh
The fact that you sell into a single hardware platform with an established user base that is substantially bigger than the gaming PC and Mac community really means that anyone in their right mind with a game idea that is suitable for consoles is going to go there first.
One, unchanging graphics hardware standard to optimize to instead of two different GPUs with 4-6 flavors of each in 'modern' boxes.
A single CPU with known performance characteristics instead of two (Intel/AMD) or four (Moto/IBM) with a range of performance specifications that range with an factor of 3 in boxes that are bein sold today, let alone legacy gear.
From an economic point of view, the standard PC game is a bad idea for the big players. Of course they will continue to exist as there are some genres that make a lot more sense to play with a keyboard and mouse, but let's face it, Windows games are now a niche and getting smaller with every new PS2, XBox and GameCube sold.
Of course, right now XBox and GameCube are still getting bashed by the PS2 when it comes to both sales numbers and established base, so unless you get a pile of cash from M$, have a license with Nintendo (the kids are addicted to Mario Kart, Double Dash right now) or really need a hard disk that the XBox promises as a standard, your probable first choice platform is going to be PS2.
As for R&C:GC, it's already on my 'gonna get it' list.