Epic Games' Mark Rein: Consoles Taking Gamers Away From PC

[MonsOlympus]

Well Id wonder if people will make content for a game they dont play, then again there could be a rise in dual gamers perhaps who might create on PC but play on console. This is kinda how I see Epic currently but hey I could be wrong, they could play heaps on PC and only touch gamepads in the promo shots to hype things up.

Maybe thats just wishful thinking, I really dont want to have to go to consoles for gaming though, its not that I wouldnt play a console or dont own one but I much prefer PC.

I guess as long as thats my preference that'll be my target audience, not that PC to console ports are impossible either take a look at farcry and farcry instincts or even orange box. Im fairly sure those are more PC like games, then again when dues ex was taken to console in the sequel it didnt go down so well. The thing of it is there has been some really kewl games on console, some of which we dont get on PC so as soon as you start doing things like that you are creating dual gamers.

It makes you wonder how many people Gears converted over to console, I mean duh people at Epics office playing COD4 on xbox 360 you made PC folks wait a year for the game so its a given alot of people would have bought one. Not to mention the fact they were probably giving out consoles like hotcakes at Epic for people to take home and test games.

Take GTA SA for example though or again orange box, Im sure they sold very well across multiple platforms even if GTA is a noticable port I think they did just enough to make it a good multi-platform title. Again though we had to wait on GTA, understandable I guess but the point Im trying to make is that for PC to get more players it needs alittle exclusivity.

Especially for PC because of the type market it is currently, we cant trade our games in to get a rebate on another or sell them off, hell we are giving away hl2! Its just PC takes more time so burst sales isnt always what its about like on console, see on console as developers say all the hardware is the same so its like pick up and buy. On PC though people might have to wait alittle while to get that much needed graphics card update or ram upgrade to be able to purchase a game, then once they own that game they are locked in because of copy protection. I just think if people actually take a look at the market and see how the two differ things become apparent.

One thing I do wish would happen on PC is officially endorsed emulators, like you could pay sony, nintendo or even MS (I guess theres live arcade) and recieve an emulator which has enclosed a steam like system for purchasing roms. Itd be hard to sell at first because PC users are perhaps used to getting emulators for free to play their ps1/2 collections for eg. If it catches though I think it could be really popular, system specs would be less of an issue thats for sure then again once the money comes into the equation we just know that things will be overpriced!

 

[Unknown Target]

Thought I'd just chime in here...I just helped run a 50-person or so LAN last night, and amongst the extremely popular Team Fortress 2, we also had quite a few pickup games of UT, and I definitely noticed some interesting facts that might be pertinent to this discussion and the state of UT3. Sorry if I'm a little rambly, I'm still pretty tired

The interesting thing was that we had pickup games of UT2k4, and even original UT at one point (which was crazy fun). I suggested UT3, but not a lot of people had it (in fact, I know someone who won it for free at a previous LAN and hadn't even opened it yet, preferring COD4 - he was gonna sell it) and the server admin flatly did not want to run a UT3 server - not because a lot of people didn't have it, but because it was such a bitch to run the server administration because of it's incompleteness. Other people didn't want to play the game because it was so crash prone and the system requirements were so high (I know both of those were my reasons - I could run UT2k4 and actually compete at full detail, or have to run UT3 at minimum in a window or else it'd crash, and since I wanted full screen I had to run it at max resolution so it'd fill up my monitor).
I ask you, how is UT3 going to make any impact if it's not even complete enough for it's main bread and butter for spreading the word (IMO anyway)? The game is practically made for LANs, yet it's so incomplete and crash-prone that it's almost not worth it.

Also, PC gaming isn't dying - it's not and it probably never will. It's becoming less popular, yea, but that only means that developers either have to go completely hard core and make the games that you simply can't have on a console (UT at full speed, war games, RTSes like Supreme Commander), or go extremely general in their appeal (COD4 and TF2). Developers like Valve make games for PCs first, and it shows in the way their games play and are made - and notice that they provided almost none of their own personal support for consolized versions of the Orange Box (IIRC). Basically, if a developer wants to make PC games, they have to want to make PC games first - and maybe only. They can't do what Epic did with UT3 and make it for both and make concessions for consoles, or they'll only piss off their core PC crowd.

I know I personally have started to edge towards modding Source-based games with my roommate, not because I like Source (I have a large vendetta against them, actually), but because they're so much better supported and complete. It's either that or UT2k4, because of UT3's lack of basic things like being able to change the sounds. However, once the engine matures I will definitely be back - I love it and it's much more powerful than Source or almost any other game out there. I'm just playing the waiting game at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, UT3 is wicked fun to play, it takes me back to the old days of UT99 and I love it to death - I just played UT2k4 online in a non-LAN setting and absolutely loathed it. But at least I can run that game, and run it well. UT3 did a great job of scaling, but it's still buggy as hell. Once it gets patched up though, I have no doubt it's gonna be awesome. Just cross your fingers that the entire community doesn't leave by then.

Epic can fix UT3 IMO, but only if they patch it for at least another two years, and really start to push it. It's either that or ditch UT3 and make another UT3.5, which they won't do.

Hope that post was't too rambly, cheers

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

PC gaming IS NOT dying, and its hilarious he used Call of Duty 4 as a example, when CoD4 has MANY more players on PC than the console versions. UnrealGrl said it best, Epic ****ed up and is trying to blame it on the consoles. Ill say it again, PC gaming is not dying, there is still a huge market for PC games.

T2A- The game doesn't suck-the general idea seems to be the gameplay is phenomenal, which it is. Its much better than 2k4, its weighter, the weapons pack more of a punch, comebacks are possible on Warfare (ONS). I agree with everything else you say, but I can't agree that UT3 is a bad game, because its not.

Unknown Target, great points, you nailed it. The game is GREAT, but you have to deal with so much crap in between its sometimes not even worth it..

Epic needs to get their ass in gear and save their franchise.

 

[Beelzebud (Satanas)]

People say PC gaming is getting less popular, but if you look into it, right now PC gaming has more gamers playing online than at any time since the internet...

 

[Phopojijo]

People say PC gaming is getting less popular, but if you look into it, right now PC gaming has more gamers playing online than at any time since the internet...

Yea because online penetration has increased... but people with computers able to play these games has seriously decreased.

That one is Intel's fault.

 

[Anuban]

PC gaming IS NOT dying, and its hilarious he used Call of Duty 4 as a example, when CoD4 has MANY more players on PC than the console versions.

I think you are way off base about this man ... between the 360 and the PS3 the game has sold more than 5 million copies worldwide. I can't believe that that many PC gamers bought this game. Sorry ... but no way.

 

[T2A`]

That one is Intel's fault.

Not entirely. While I agree their onboard graphics are terrible and in no way up to par for games of even mediocre visual attractiveness, a balance should have been struck long ago between them and game designers. There's only so much Intel can do while keeping the motherboards affordable, yet developers are cramming more and more fluff and glitz into games that has absolutely zero long-term affect on anything worthwhile (UT3 is a perfect example). You can also blame companies like Dell for charging an arm and a leg for a system but then failing to supply a decent graphics solution in form of a physical card that isn't of the lowest denomination.

T2A- The game doesn't suck-the general idea seems to be the gameplay is phenomenal, which it is. Its much better than 2k4, its weighter, the weapons pack more of a punch, comebacks are possible on Warfare (ONS). I agree with everything else you say, but I can't agree that UT3 is a bad game, because its not.

Taken as a whole the game sucks. There being much more wrong with it than right is the basis for saying it sucks.

Additionally, the gameplay isn't necessarily phenomenal for everyone. Many will tell you both VCTF and WAR are worse than their UT2004 counterparts. The maps for CTF and DM generally aren't good at all. The movement speed and air control and inconsistent feel of the weapons thanks to shady netcode causes problems, especially in conjunction with the severe lack of servers that ping under 60 (or even under 100). But I digress; continuing pointing out UT3's issues at the gameplay/core level is a pointless endeavor on an Unreal forum since no one will listen. UT3 is a bad game if you stop all the bias and compare it to most other games that give you the full package you paid for. So it doesn't have the shield gun or dodge-jump. That doesn't make it good, and the numbers don't lie. Check the server browser any time you're curious as to whether or not UT3 sucks overall.

There are things I don't like about UT2004, and I'm glad those things are gone in UT3, but again, while Epic may have had some interesting ideas, their implementation is crap. Remember adrenaline? That's a perfect example of a nice idea but a terrible implementation. Even though it completely upset the balance of the game in favor of the better players, UT2004 was good enough overall to ignore that and some of its other problems. But there comes a point when it's just too much to ignore, and UT3 is well beyond that limit. UT3 doesn't do it for me gameplay-wise or as a whole package. I've had no fun with it even online, and I'm not going to play a game that is so broken and so bad. This may lead people to wonder why I still hang around, but BuF is kind of like my interbutts home, even if lots of people get angry when I post.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

T2A-its funny though, even with all those problems, its still much better than 2k4. Was 2k4 a bad game? No, I just didn't care for that type of gameplay. You obviously like 2k4 better, to each his own I guess. Not liking the gameplay is personal prefrence, the gameplay is well done. But I agree with pretty much everything else you're saying.

I think you are way off base about this man ... between the 360 and the PS3 the game has sold more than 5 million copies worldwide. I can't believe that that many PC gamers bought this game. Sorry ... but no way.

According to PC gamer, while the console versions sold better, there a more people playing the PC version online. Then again there is a high rate of piracy for the PC version. http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951

 

[Continuum]

The movement speed and air control and inconsistent feel of the weapons thanks to shady netcode causes problems, especially in conjunction with the severe lack of servers that ping under 60 (or even under 100).

Your hopes are set a little high if your looking for servers with a ping of 60. I think every once in a great while I see a server with a ping like that but usually the majority of servers are in the 100 range, 90 if I'm lucky. As for the other stuff you should know your experience may change during online play it happens with every game ever to support multiplayer personally I think the game feels more responsive online than previous versions.

Honestly I'm kind of glad epic's getting rid of the leet players. Those of us that don't spend our lives thinking and worrying over games to the point of loosing our minds tend to have a lot more fun even if the game isn't perfect.

 

[T2A`]

I can get servers that ping 14 in other games that people actually play. Also, Epic's not getting rid of the "leet" players -- they've already lost millions from all levels, and via normal distribution most of them are average, casual players rather than "leet" guys. But I see your subtle personal attack and raise you a "I don't mind bad players, but angry bad players are the worst kind."

@FuLLBLeeD: This is why it's a pointless argument. You think the gameplay is well-done because you find the game fun. I think the opposite. And then adding all the rest of the missing crap sends it on a downward spiral to the very bottom of my to-play list.

 

[Jonathan]

I'll just make a hi-res pack for UT3 and make everyone happy.




Just kidding, I don't have THAT much time.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Yeah I was gonna say under 100 pings isnt too much to ask for, I dunno if that server issue or Epics to be honest though. It seems once I get in a game the ping gets better so a 140 can drop to an 80-100 which is half decent. Compare that to my 30-40's in TF2 though and yeah, cant really tell you what the difference is. I dont really notice that much lag, maybe thats because when things get heavy my cpu bottlenecks anyways

 

[Grobut]

Honestly, UT3 is only living on promises and hopes for the future, because it is a bad game, even if you do love the gameplay, there's just no denying all the problems, the lack of good maps, the UI, the bugs, the instabillity and conflicts with hardware, the missing features, the horrid server browser, the lack of Admin tools, the incompleate mod support, the Gamespy dependance.. i could go on and on!

The only reason people tollerate this, and are willing to wade though all that just to get a game going, is because they know "this is just a phase, it will get better, there will be patches!".. but then, it is really a good game? or does it just hold the promis of becoming one? hmm?

If Epic told us tomorrow that "there it is, Patch 2, this is the last patch you are getting", how long do you really think the game would last even with thouse fixes? not very long i'd wager, because even with that, it would allways be incompleate, and a PITA to work with and play.

 

[Unknown Target]

Grobut, you do have some points, and honestly, if we were to look at UT3 in a factual way, eliminating all circumstantial biases, (that means all gameplay issues - whether or not it's fun, has dodge jump, whatever), the only way we can look at it is via it's feature set. It has great graphics, great physics, and it stands out as one of the best modern engines out there, both technically and artistically.

However, beyond that, we are left with a game that is sorely incomplete. I won't bother repeating what has been said about what's wrong with it - everyone knows it by now, you can't deny the server browser, lack of options, and bugs.

To get a truly analytical view of UT, you have to, like I said, remove everything having to do with how "fun" the gameplay is and recognize it solely on it's technical merits, and that, unfortunately, means that it is a "poor" game. If you include those personal opinions, however, some people can stomach it's incompleteness and say that it is a good game. Then it becomes a question of opinions - an unwinnable argument.

This was all in response to the "is it a bad game or not" argument. The game is incomplete. What matters is whether or not you can stomach that incompleteness and play/enjoy the game. I can, to a point, but sometimes I'd really rather just go play the original UT (more fun than 2k4 IMO) than have to deal with the freaking huge amount of technical issues that UT3 has. I understand if others can't and can't stand the fact that the product they paid for isn't totally complete.



All that being said, Epic is doing a grand job of patching it so far. Sure, they're slow, but they're hearing our complaints and doing our best. Still, the argument that we have to wait to be able to enjoy a game we have now, or fix it ourselves, is starting to get kind of annoying. And in this day and age, games like the UT and Quake (3, not 4) series are a huge throwback - something that really appeals only to fans who have played those types of games before, and/or the super hardcore tournament players who only touch the 1v1 portion of the games and nothing else*. What's in now is achievements, multiplayer leveling, teamwork, etc - and much slower games.



* This, by the way, is a massive waste IMO. Why does Epic spend all their time updating Warfare and Onslaught when the only time their game is actually used in big settings is in 1v1. Why does no one do professional teams, or do competitions for UT Onslaught, or CTF (IIRC I think there might be some of this, but I can never recall hearing of any), or even TDM? All I ever see in competitions is 1v1. It's silly and stupid IMO.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Why would you rate a game TECHNICALLY if you were going to rate it objectively? If you wanted to be objective, you would rate it by what makes up a game, aka gameplay. You don't "play" the menu system, even though you are forced to use it (to a certain degree).

I think for the most part people overexaggerate the problems UT3 has. It simply cannot be denied that there are a lot of issues, but I wouldn't say it's a bigger pain to set up a UT3 server as a CoD4 server (despite the latter simply being more complete), personally.

 

[fuegerstef]

Honestly I'm kind of glad epic's getting rid of the leet players. Those of us that don't spend our lives thinking and worrying over games to the point of loosing our minds tend to have a lot more fun even if the game isn't perfect.

That's the trend. Mediocre games for mediocre players. The sad thing is, that this once had been true for consoles (masses of games for casual consoleros with mediocre skill). Now it has reached the PC.

 

[Wormbo]

They'll come back for MSUC just like they did before.

Only to vanish again after MSUC is over.

Honestly, most of the UT mods I have downloaded were pimped either in BU news or on modsquad. The latter no longer exists and the former doesn't review.
If UT3 modding is supposed to be more interesting than UT200x modding was then we need a large review site with easy-to-use submit feature. Moddb/Addondb blows for this because it's not designed specifically for UT and there's no other large mod/mutator review site, at least I don't know any, but I'll happily take pointers.
When I made UT and UT2003 mods I always liked to get to the point when I could submit it to modsquad for review and user comments. It's really a shame the site died. It was always a nice push to get your mod's quality presented to you in a number and then try to beat it.

 

[Jrubzjeknf]

Why would you rate a game TECHNICALLY if you were going to rate it objectively? If you wanted to be objective, you would rate it by what makes up a game, aka gameplay. You don't "play" the menu system, even though you are forced to use it (to a certain degree).

The game is rated by the whole game, and nothing but the game. Gameplay is an aspect - a big one, but still an aspect.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I won't disagree with that, since it is true. But I can't see why you would ignore the gameplay to do any kind of objective review.

We would like to get ModSquad started up again if anyone knows anybody that would be interested in pioneering such a project.

 

[Unknown Target]

I wasn't saying cutting it out completely - I was just replying to the "UT3 sucks/no it doesn't" argument. You can't win that, for either side because it's subjective - so the only way to logically compare is objectively, and from that standpoint, UT3 is incomplete technically. It still gets high marks for technical and artistic merit, but it's incomplete.


Basically the point of my post was that you can't win the "UT3 is better/worse than UT2k4" argument, so people should move on.

EDIT: I just had what epitomizes UT3 to me; I was just playing it, won a deathmatch, was having a great time, and remembering why I loved this game so much. I was switching into a Warfare server aaand...it crashes on me. Not to mention that I have to run it in a window or else the crashes will force me to do a hard reboot. *Sigh* But it's so damn fun.

But why are almost all other UE3-based games so much more stable than UT3? I mean, UT3 is basically GoW's engine with some relatively minor alterations, so why can that game run and this one can't?