If they had put the 22million in Apple stock, or Gold. They would have been billionaires.
Butt. Spending more then 1 million to make a game is dumb.
Cliff B Tweaks PC Gamers Over MIA Bulletstorm Demo
- Thread starter hal
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
If they had put the 22million in Apple stock, or Gold. They would have been billionaires.
Butt. Spending more then 1 million to make a game is dumb.
You forget publisher fees and money needed to ship the damn things to stores as well as any other fees that are calculated in. They may very well have made a profit still, but 150m they did not make. Nice try at sugar coating though
We may not know the exact terms of the publishing deals but 14% of $150 Mio only to reach the break-even point sounds like an absurd low deal, especially from a company that did very well with Far Cry. Plus they got a lot of extra money from 1.5 Mio copies of Warhead due to the minimal direct production costs of an expansion.
And where do you think they found the money developing Crysis in the first place if the business was not profitable, not from Far Cry that sold 2.5 Mio copies?
Last edited:
There are two major releases I have been interested in for Feb. One is bulletstorm, and the other is the Dawn Of War II expansion. Both of these games are made by well know long time pc devs with large fanbases.
One of these games will be using games for windows live. The other game came about specially to get away from windows live. One game will lack a pc demo, and the other rewards your reservation with early entry to their public beta. One game calls its pc fanbases whiners, while the other its doing everything it can to appease.
Guess which one I am more interested in at this point?
One of these games will be using games for windows live. The other game came about specially to get away from windows live. One game will lack a pc demo, and the other rewards your reservation with early entry to their public beta. One game calls its pc fanbases whiners, while the other its doing everything it can to appease.
Guess which one I am more interested in at this point?
What's the point Benfica? Crytek either made a small profit or a small loss, depending on how expensive their overhead was (which we just don't know), but they made that bed and chose to lie in it themselves.
They messed up with Crysis, pure and simple, they made a game aimed at the top 1% of PC-gamers that had super-rigs, and was neigh unplayable on anything else, even all this time later, with some upgrades to my rig, i doubt i could play it very well, which is exactly why i never bought it.
Crytek absolutely failed to look at the market they where making the game for, Steam had made tons of hardware surveys as they allways do at that time, and the vast, VAST majority of PC gamers did not own a rig that was capable of running Crysis.
I guess Crytek gambled on us all running out and upgrading our rigs to play the game, but i could have told them they where idiots for expecting that even before the game shipped, as it was very obvious to the rest of us that no other game was going to have such steep requirements for many years to come, and spending that much money on top-of-the-line hardware (that would be out-dated when the rest of the industry caught on, which hasen't even happened yet!) just to play one game, which didn't even look all the great anyway, more like a rehashed Farcry1 with pretty graphics and some new gimmicks, at a time where the economy was uncertain, was never going to happen!
Crysis is a great example of how you can screw yourself over, by taking things too far, and ignoring what your target audience actually has hardware wise, they made a stupid gamble and got a bloody nose for it.
It is not, however, a good example of the PC market, Crysis was destined to see poor sales because of the stupid choises made by Crytek, it was not a viable product in the market it was released in, and Crytek have only themselves to blame for that.
In the end, all Crytek made was an expensive Benchmark tool, that people wheren't willing to pay full retail price for, i'll bet you that the vast, VAST majority of pirated copies, where made by people who just wanted to see if their rig could even play it, and to use it as a Benchmark tool to test their various PC tweaks and upgrades.
They messed up with Crysis, pure and simple, they made a game aimed at the top 1% of PC-gamers that had super-rigs, and was neigh unplayable on anything else, even all this time later, with some upgrades to my rig, i doubt i could play it very well, which is exactly why i never bought it.
Crytek absolutely failed to look at the market they where making the game for, Steam had made tons of hardware surveys as they allways do at that time, and the vast, VAST majority of PC gamers did not own a rig that was capable of running Crysis.
I guess Crytek gambled on us all running out and upgrading our rigs to play the game, but i could have told them they where idiots for expecting that even before the game shipped, as it was very obvious to the rest of us that no other game was going to have such steep requirements for many years to come, and spending that much money on top-of-the-line hardware (that would be out-dated when the rest of the industry caught on, which hasen't even happened yet!) just to play one game, which didn't even look all the great anyway, more like a rehashed Farcry1 with pretty graphics and some new gimmicks, at a time where the economy was uncertain, was never going to happen!
Crysis is a great example of how you can screw yourself over, by taking things too far, and ignoring what your target audience actually has hardware wise, they made a stupid gamble and got a bloody nose for it.
It is not, however, a good example of the PC market, Crysis was destined to see poor sales because of the stupid choises made by Crytek, it was not a viable product in the market it was released in, and Crytek have only themselves to blame for that.
In the end, all Crytek made was an expensive Benchmark tool, that people wheren't willing to pay full retail price for, i'll bet you that the vast, VAST majority of pirated copies, where made by people who just wanted to see if their rig could even play it, and to use it as a Benchmark tool to test their various PC tweaks and upgrades.
That CliffyB is a douchebag, a clitoris who likes to masturbate on this thread and that she should stfu:tup:
As a quick example, an indie project using UE3/UDK, reaches $10k of sales. Valve gets $3000. Epic gets 25% of the remaining (0.25 * 7000=$1750) and the dev gets $5250.Do I really need to?
Explain me why should I praise Valve and bash Epic
Who said you were supposed to max out ALL Crysis video settings or that a studio can't offer the best eyecandy even if current systems can't run them all simultaneously? Some complain if a studio sticks with console parity, others complain if they try to push beyond.Grobut said:
Who said anything about bashing Epic over UDK? UDK is awesome.
What I was saying is that that dev would probably expect $1000 of sales if they weren't able to get on Steam (and in your sorry example, Epic would actually only be taking 25% of $2000 since they give you the first $5k free and clear). I don't really think there is a viable way to decry the benefits of Steam to the market, even if it's not as advantageous to consumers in every market...
Nobody said that. What they said is that despite Crytek complaining that Crysis didn't sell well "because of piracy", the actual reason is because their game ran like ass on most machines. And if you turned down the settings to make it playable, it looked like ass and ran horrible given the visuals it was putting out.
Crysis was a garbage game that was trying to hock DX10.0 on the gaming world by pulling wool over our eyes, and it failed accordingly. The game disabled the menu options for the highest settings unless you were in DX10.0 mode, but if you forced the settings through the ini you could get all of the features in DX9.0 mode, plus the game actually ran better that way. It was poorly-optimized tripe, and "zomg teh pirates!" is just Crytek making excuses.
Nobody complains when a company tries to push the boundaries of what's possible using the fullest capabilities of modern computers. They do, however, complain when a company tries to feed them a fistful of crap without even having the courtesy to be honest about it.
Again, there's a reason Valve and Blizzard are more than profitable while focusing almost exclusively on the PC. They actually understand what PC gaming is about, and they don't try to treat it like a tack-on, "let's just recook this in PC mode" afterthought to their console business.
Consoles have their place. I own all three of the current ones and several ones from previous generations. PCs also have their place. A PC game is not just a console game that accepts keyboard and mouse input, contrary to what modern developers seem to think. Similarly, you can't just remap the controls of a PC game to controller buttons and expect it to work well.
Just watched a Bulletstorm demo-video on kotaku.
No wonder they don't put out a PC demo. Gamers would have been bored after 2 minutes and won't buy the full game.
Without a demo they can at least hope to sell it to those who didn't see the repetetive boredom beforehand.
And yes, I am aware of the fact that the player was a newbie (he stated it so in the article).
Someone else on this forum (in another thread) stated that it will get old after an hour. I think that was a generous estimation.
EDIT, here is the link:
http://kotaku.com/5742965/giggling-my-way-through-the-bloody-bulletstorm-demo
Don't complain if you want the wasted minutes of your life back when you watch it.
No wonder they don't put out a PC demo. Gamers would have been bored after 2 minutes and won't buy the full game.
Without a demo they can at least hope to sell it to those who didn't see the repetetive boredom beforehand.
And yes, I am aware of the fact that the player was a newbie (he stated it so in the article).
Someone else on this forum (in another thread) stated that it will get old after an hour. I think that was a generous estimation.
EDIT, here is the link:
http://kotaku.com/5742965/giggling-my-way-through-the-bloody-bulletstorm-demo
Don't complain if you want the wasted minutes of your life back when you watch it.
Last edited:
Great stuff, terrible video. It will be a good crazy time-waster FPS until Serious Sam 3 will come out; Revenge trailer was amazing but seriously
why allies covering your back
I hate being forced to have those in a FPS game.
And wow Youtube is slow as ****.
Seen another video posted at Youtube, better and without commentary. You can carry more weapons apparently.
EDIT: Waaaait a moment, the music sounds definitely like Painkiller. Don't tell me they hired back those same composers because the Painkiller OST was amazing
great now I have to wait another month, at least I got Dead Space 2 now which owns.
why allies covering your back
I hate being forced to have those in a FPS game.
And wow Youtube is slow as ****.
Seen another video posted at Youtube, better and without commentary. You can carry more weapons apparently.
EDIT: Waaaait a moment, the music sounds definitely like Painkiller. Don't tell me they hired back those same composers because the Painkiller OST was amazing
great now I have to wait another month, at least I got Dead Space 2 now which owns.
Last edited:
Ars Technica reported a similar concern in their writeup of the demo.
Interestingly they pointed out that playing through the demo unlocks some content in the full game? Maybe the lack of a central repository / infrastructure for this on the PC is what's holding back a PC demo?