Cliff B Tweaks PC Gamers Over MIA Bulletstorm Demo

[DarkEmperor]

Games like Bulletstorm or Gears of War are ONLY because they sell a ****ton on console. If the console market didnt exist then no one would be able to finance those kind of games anyway and there wouldnt be a PC version either, as developing them would cost far more than they would sell.

you 'd better take a look in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games

 

[ScHlAuChi]

You're really ignoring the facts, though. The point is, if you make a game that has mass appeal (where Titan Quest fails plus it wasn't made by Blizzard) and is high quality and well polished, it tends to sell well. There are tons of examples of this.

You are ignoring the reality here, just because you make a game that has mass appeal does NOT mean that you automatically get good sales!

So only Blizzard is allowed to make PC games, because they are the only ones that deliver quality?
Strange, cause i remember Titan Quest getting fantastic reviews and a few Game of the Year nominations on PC.

Additionally, Steam sales show that lower PC prices tend to maximize your revenue. The holiday sale in 2008 had some games earning thousands of percentage signs more revenue than they did before they were on sale.

Yes they do - but this still doesnt mean that the developer earns enough money to build a stable company on that plattform alone, let alone making more expensive games for hardcore people.

The problem you have on PC is 1) less people are likely to want to blow $60 on your single player only, crappy DRM/Middleware game as they are on console, and 2) more people are willing to wait for deep discounts because they already have lots of games to play.

Sounds like a self-fullfilling prophecy to me, as it all comes down to the same point - PC market is not generating enough money to warrant big expensive games (unless you go the F2P route with Microtransactions, but thats a different story)

The problem on the PC right now is not that money can't be made, it's that many developers/publishers don't know what they need to do to MAKE money on there or they are simply unwilling to. Valve doesn't seem to be going bankrupt.

Do you think they are stupid? Publishers and developers know exactly how to make money on PC - look at the whole F2P market that makes tons! The problem is that if you do that, you need to make a game that is ONLY made for PC with all the gamedesign being build around the microstransaction model and then you cannot sell that game on console.
So the only other option to make money is by having games that are super cheap to develop - see PopCap.

But currently they still make way more money by investing that in console games compared to games targetted only at the PC (see Quake Live, Battlefield Heroes and so on)

As for Valve - why do you think Valve doesnt go bankrupt?
Because they are getting friggn 30% of whatever sells on Steam!
How many developers have such a secondary revenue stream?
Pretty much none unless you have an engine to licence like EPIC or Worlds biggest MMO like Blizzard.
So using Valve as an example is stupid!

But if youre happy to play only Valve and Blizzard games for the rest of your life - have fun

 

[ScHlAuChi]

you 'd better take a look in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games

What is that supposed to tell me?
That a few PC games out of several million sold alot and that this is proof that everyone can sell that much?

Far Cry and Crysis are in this list - and yet even the Yerli brothers said in an interview that PC only isnt viable for them anymore, so how can this be?

 

[Benfica]

I didn't say his real persona came out when in this quote for Bulletstorm, but his real persona came out in 2008 when he stopped pretending to care about PC gaming at all. If he was really a PC gamer like you said, I find it impossible that he can turn 180 so completely and become so anti-PC as he has become in the years since then. So there is only two conclusion, either he stuck with PC gaming back then because it was making the most money (but it did look like he liked it too), or he simply chases the highest gross money market at the expense of any other market (which does make sense, as Epic had yet to make a game for PS3 before Bulletstorm). Either way, CliffyB and Epic is still servicing the consoles over PC, and that's the main point I do not like (if he had not treated PC worse than the other systems, I would not have bother to care how he acted).

The way I understand it, CliffyB is annoyed with the fanbase since UT2003

 

[Miko]

What is that supposed to tell me?
That a few PC games out of several million sold alot and that this is proof that everyone can sell that much?

Far Cry and Crysis are in this list - and yet even the Yerli brothers said in an interview that PC only isnt viable for them anymore, so how can this be?

The point is that these are all PC games or were PC games first before being ported to an other platform and that they sold well and its to your response that Gears of War Only sold well because of Consoles and that you are slotting BulletStorm in that same category without taking facts in consideration that these PC games never needed console support and that PC could thrive on its own should consoles never evolved.

A second point is that some developers rely entirely on PC community and never port their content to consoles or develop for consoles at all and do just fine and sustain themselves very well.

For the comment about secondary revenues. EA has online distribution services now. Gamespy does, Xfire does, even Moddb has a service now and so do onlive and don't forget the windows live marketplace. Crytech and ID license their engines as well too. I'm certain there are more companies that do this as well. Lets put Sony in this list too because we know they are one of the worlds largest electronics companies.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

The point is that these are all PC games or were PC games first before being ported to an other platform and that they sold well and its to your response that Gears of War Only sold well because of Consoles and that you are slotting BulletStorm in that same category without taking facts in consideration that these PC games never needed console support and that PC could thrive on its own should consoles never evolved.

Yes but what im saying is that they are the exception of the rule!
For each of those successes theres countless failures that people just dont see!

A second point is that some developers rely entirely on PC community and never port their content to consoles or develop for consoles at all and do just fine and sustain themselves very well.

Yes as i said in the other answer, they make games that are completely made with the PC market in mind - and thats why they work - but not all developers can or want to do that, as not all genres work with that model.

For the comment about secondary revenues. EA has online distribution services now. Gamespy does, Xfire does, even Moddb has a service now and so do onlive and don't forget the windows live marketplace. Crytech and ID license their engines as well too. I'm certain there are more companies that do this as well. Lets put Sony in this list too because we know they are one of the worlds largest electronics companies.

Neither Crytek nor ID can live off their engine sales

 

[Miko]

You know Crytek plans on releasing Cry Engine 3 in a similar fashion as UDK right? I also forgot to mention one big one. All the developers that are also publishers.

 

[shoptroll]

Neither Crytek nor ID can live off their engine sales

Why do you think id were bought by Zenimax last year

(P.S. even so, id's engines have never been terribly popular as a licensed middleware platform)

 

[Miko]

Why do you think id were bought by Zenimax last year

(P.S. even so, id's engines have never been terribly popular as a licensed middleware platform)

You drive a hard bargain but i did hear about id running into issues recently but my point was secondary income.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Epic done to PC a lot just by working on UE3 and releasing UDK. Now, with UT3 their error was giving a lot of promises and talking a lot about the game while it was at the design stage + awful UI, which was later fixed to a certain degree in patches. Still, gameplay-wise the game is solid, although it's a bit different than UT2004, but I've heard no less, if not more grumbling about ruined gameplay when UT2003 was out.
Then there was Gears of War 2 which was X360 exclusive, just like the original one, except here it stayed exclusive. And now comes Bulletstorm, which is blamed for not being PC-oriented just because it has no demo and uses GfWL. GfWL, while not the best middleware out there, is not the worst, and I had no issues with it. Demo? Yes there's no demo, but actually, look at a lot of games out there. How much of them have demos? Valve did a lot to PC with Steam, but they released demos for just 2 games - Half-Life 2 and Portal, and Portal demo was released way after the game's initial release. So I don't quite see where Epic went 180 on PC. They do pretty much what others do, and now one bad joke and everyone already got pitchforks in their hands, and are ready to torch both the game and cliffyb.

They did all of 3 titles in 3 years after UT3: Shadow Complex, GoW2, and Inifinity Blade, none of which is related to PC at all. You may say thats only 3 titles, but I could say their product line in 3 years has been 100% non-PC. But this is just going to be an opinion about what is enough, and we shouldn't need to argue about semantics.

As for the demos, yes Epic didn't start that trend of not having PC demos for multiplat games, but seeing them so willing to follow that convention is just sad. They could do better, cause they had release demos for their games all the way to UT2004. I know Epic can do even better than Valve (I did not say Valve was the best PC dev of all time), and indeed I say old Epic is better than old Valve and even current Valve, but the current Epic just keeps on turning its back and running away from PC.

Even if pitchforks are too much, is it really ok to jsut take it when Epic chooses XBLA and iOS (really?) over PC? (lets not include XBL for now, just to make it easier.)

 

[Miko]

They did all of 3 titles in 3 years after UT3: Shadow Complex, GoW2, and Inifinity Blade, none of which is related to PC at all. You may say thats only 3 titles, but I could say their product line in 3 years has been 100% non-PC. But this is just going to be an opinion about what is enough, and we shouldn't need to argue about semantics.

As for the demos, yes Epic didn't start that trend of not having PC demos for multiplat games, but seeing them so willing to follow that convention is just sad. They could do better, cause they had release demos for their games all the way to UT2004. I know Epic can do even better than Valve (I did not say Valve was the best PC dev of all time), and indeed I say old Epic is better than old Valve and even current Valve, but the current Epic just keeps on turning its back and running away from PC.

Even if pitchforks are too much, is it really ok to jsut take it when Epic chooses XBLA and iOS (really?) over PC? (lets not include XBL for now, just to make it easier.)

Shadow Complex and Infinity Blade are both Chair Entertainment games done on Epics technology with Epic being more of a publisher then a main devoloper.

You really need to let go of all the resentment. It's not going to change Epics decision on where they are focusing at all. Ontop of that the development cycle for a game can be much longer then 3 years. Epic and Valve work on 2 different mottos. Valve will be Valve while Epic will always be Epic.

 

[Kharnellius]

Your plan is flawed. PC's can't read poop.

My copy of Red Faction 2 (PC) proves otherwise.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Shadow Complex and Infinity Blade are both Chair Entertainment games done on Epics technology with Epic being more of a publisher then a main devoloper.

Epic brought out Chair, just as they have PCF. Chair is a subsidiary under Epic, so everything Chair does goes through Epic. Epic has to have highlighted all of their projects, and I wouldn't be surprise if Epic had Chair made those games to highlight UE3 on XBLA and iOS. But those are not big games, I mean they could have release those for PC or make an other equally small game on PC, but they don't even make the time for that.

You really need to let go of all the resentment.

I have had ignore most of whatever Epic is doing, except for UDK, many times. I convince myself they are just an other console dev (why Epic?) like Capcom and SquareEnix, who only makes quick PC ports for extra money, that is until CliffyB starts mouthing off at PC again (many times as well).

 

[Northrawn]

Valve ... released demos for just 2 games - Half-Life 2 and Portal, and Portal demo....

But they had free weekends and so on for their games.

Let's hope EPIC does it again with Bulletstorm as they did with UIT3 (Black).

 

[Alhanalem]

But if youre happy to play only Valve and Blizzard games for the rest of your life - have fun

Because only Valve games are on steam. Oh wait, no. Practically every good non-blizzard game in existence is available on Steam. Hell, you can even buy decades-old games like the original Quake and Doom and some of Epic's old games on Steam. People buy this ****. Services like Steam are responsible for making it easier to make an assload of money on the PC platform. I honestly think that a lot of recent PC releases would not have been on the PC if not for Steam and other online distribution services.

 

[_Lynx]

Even if pitchforks are too much, is it really ok to jsut take it when Epic chooses XBLA and iOS (really?) over PC? (lets not include XBL for now, just to make it easier.)

Both games are exclusives and were not released on any other platform (which would be PSN and Android respectively). It was their decision not to release these games not just on PC, but also on other platforms, and I can't do anything about it. Why I should be upset about this decision? I may not like, but why fuss over it and consider it a personal insult? May be the reason I'm not is that I just take the situation as it is - that Epic is not obliged to me in any way, and I just don't expect them to make a PC version of everything they make?

 

[Vaginal Epiphany]

Epic are in a way baiting the pirates with this though. You often see people reason their pirating antics with "I wanted to try the game before I buy it". Not saying it's right or even logical, but that's the way it is.

I admit I've pirated games before, but it's always been with the intention to try the game out before I decide to buy it. If it can capture my attention for at least two hours without getting stale, I'll probably buy it, and if I weren't remarkably interested in the title in the first place, I wouldn't pirate it. So far I've ended up buying 90% of the stuff I've "tried out". I only wish I had pirated Mass Effect 2 instead of buying it on launch day from Steam like a Bioware fanboy. €60 down the drain

As it stands now I'm not that interested in this game. Sure, it looks like good mindless fun, perfect for what you want from a console game you can just jump into, but it doesn't look particularly challenging, and I'm sick of on-the-rails shooters that hold your hand the entire time and require you to press E repeatedly to win. I'll try the demo out on a friend's xbox when it comes out, but I doubt I'll change my mind about this one.

Also I'm quite eager to see Epic be grumpy about PC sales of this game
Because they will be, just as sure as it is they will be surprised and baffled as to why that is, even though you can pretty much bet that the pre and post launch support for PC will be meagre at best and non-existent at worst.

Lets not forget about Epic getting grumpy if the PC version gets lower reviews for whatever issues there might be with optimization. God forbid if there's any problems with GFWL for the PC version after release.

(speculation)

 

[Vaginal Epiphany]

What is that supposed to tell me?
That a few PC games out of several million sold alot and that this is proof that everyone can sell that much?

Troll harder.

 

[zynthetic]

If the console market didnt exist then no one would be able to finance those kind of games anyway and there wouldnt be a PC version either, as developing them would cost far more than they would sell.

The console market exists to elevate itself. The idea that even such a market exists is simply a fabrication used to stack numbers in favor of any single one of the several independent platforms favorably against other platforms (pc, mobile, etc..). "Console market" is just a phrase, not a thing. A great many people fail to see that and champions of those platforms laying claim to it love to use this to their advantage in popularity contests. Any platform regardless of where it lies is entirely on it's on in terms of it's own success or failure; they are all competing with each other. If you want to believe the combined profits generated from all console based platforms exceed that from PC it's as obvious as saying three is greater than one. When you break down numbers per platform to see how well they're each holding up against each other you'll see the amount of commercial shipped titles and profits generated from them, shedding flukes and exceptions they are all roughly the same.

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

Valve expands their market without splitting their communities by making Portal 2 (and maybe TF2/L4D2 in the future?) cross-platform on PC, Mac and PS3 including voicechat and friendslist.

Epic cant even be arsed to offer a demo for the PC-version of Bulletstorm.
And as if that wasnt enough they let their main front man piss in the PC players face on twitter

No wonder Valve gets my money these days.

Cross platform between console and PC only works for certain games imo. If it's cooperative, it should be fine. But competitive, gamepad gets owned.