To game devolopers

rawrxbrad

There is a crisis going on with the PC Gaming lately. Iron Lore, developers of Titan Quest, have called it quits. Clifford Bleszinski, lead designer of Gears of War, stated that the PC Industry is in a disarray. Reflexive’s director of marketing Russell Carrol wrote an article on Gamasutra about PC Piracy. It seems everyone wants to play Chicken Little, which I don’t understand because who the hell wants to listen to a chicken? Not me.



So instead of being the pessimistic ass like everyone else, I’m going to give suggestions to PC developers on how to make gamers give a damn about them. I’m not speaking as some idiot marketing guru or an experienced game developer, because that would make me a liar. I merely speak as a gamer who has money, meaning I don’t have to tug mommy’s skirt when I want a new game. In short, I’m your audience.-whisper2053

If you want the full story with pictures and all that jazz,  its really insightful so if you take a little time out of your get rich quick scheme take a looksy =]

http://downloadcastle.freeforums.org/want-me-off-the-360-ps3-wii-then-listen-t112.html

Xanrae

I'd like to expand on this.

- Graphics

What happens here is that reviewers and rich white kids with GeForce9999XFRGTX ULTRA GIGA TURBO cards dis any game that doesn't have cutting edge graphics. The kids claim that 'this is progress, get a job and buy a real computer'. The reviewers have only about five minutes to play a game (instead of 2 years), so they pay too much attention to the only thing they could possibly notice - graphics. They also get their games for free and have the best gamer rigs in the world at work.

Worse, the first thing you see of a new game is screenshots, then videos. What do you see on either? Not the gameplay, not loot balance, not the skill factor. Just graphics.

For many people with less experience in gaming, and/or the proverbial 6 year old kids, graphics are all that counts because they have no idea about anything else. Junior won't notice that the handling model in his new Need for Speed Turbo Furious Cop Wrecker game is worse than before and the physics are a joke. What counts to him is that 'it looks good'.

As a result, games with mediocre graphics get low scores and bad word of mouth. Not surprising then that developers go for the latest and greatest in graphics instead.

Which leads to positive buzz and... low sales because noone can run the games. (Both Crysis and UT3 bombed badly)

- System price

There is no good reason why a PC should be much more expensive than a console. You can do much more with it, which warrants a higher price, but right now a console costs a few hundred quid and a gamer PC costs 2K and you have to keep upgrading it.

This is the fault of the graphics war. Does WoW have bad graphics? No, it looks better than most thanks to its artistic style. Yet you'll need a super-powered graphics card to play AoC, which looks like garbage but has more zomgpolygons.

- MMOs

Nope. The problem isn't MMOs. The problem is that developers are scared of trying anything new, resulting in a lot of identical games with very short lifespans.

This happens everywhere, but console kiddies are more likely to swallow the recycled crap.

Remember when Starcraft 1 was new and revolutionary? It looks like this time round, Blizzard is dead set on porting it to a 3D engine and calling it quits. We don't want SC in 3D, we want a new and better game. This may well become their first market failure.

- Quality

Hell yes. I didn't know if PCs can feel pain, but after installing the poorly optimised Hellgate London on it, I'm certain of it. Most other games come with all sorts of copy protections that linger and slow down the system.

I'm not even mentioning the many games that simply crash regularly. Yes, my drivers are up to date. No, my Vista installation is as clean as it can be. I am not stupid. Yet somehow we are expected to pay €50 for a game and if it keeps crashing or pausing randomly unless I take care to reboot each time I want to run the game, I should just take it up the ass and wait for the sequel.

- Shareware

I believe games are actually moving back to the old shareware model, but not thanks to developer efforts. Nowadays, you can get a limited singleplayer copy with no additional content and no patches for free. From piratebay. If you want the addons, or go online at all, you'll need a valid serial number and pass a number of checks.

Developers fail to see that multiplayer is the future, and by clinging to outdated single player models, they will forever struggle with piracy.

A recent example from a genre that has always been about single player and refocussed on multiplayer: Need for Speed. All of the Need for Speed games had multiplayer tacked on as an afterthought. The latest installation, Pro Street, is however very multiplayer-centric, featuring the option to share tuning blueprints, all sorts of online ladders, private racedays for friends and more. It is far too complex for most people, who just want to race but can't because the game decides they are no longer allowed to join a raceday in progress. Multiplayer mode is a ghost town.

- Too much multiplayer

This is the other extreme. Many games depend very heavily on other players to make them fun. There was this glut of multiplayer-only games in the early 21st century, but even now, many MMOs are unplayable without other people.

I believe UT3 and other 'second choice' shooters have fallen victim to this. I didn't buy UT3, although I was in the mood for a competitive shooter, because I doubted it would have enough people playing due to the competition from games like CoD. It failed. Did everyone else perhaps think the same way?

A good MMO gives people something to do even when they can't find a group right now. Games that are just multiplayer matchmaking services are very vulnerable to low sales.

- Microtransactions/monthly fees

This must be turning off a lot of people. Noone wants to pay extra after buying the box. Especially if all you get in return is the same balance of power as before, except everyone does 50% more damage and has 50% more life, or everyone's car is 20% faster, or everyone gains 100% more experience.

People feel like they are being swindled and pressured to pay up anyway in order to be competitive. This, I believe, explains the failure of such games as Hellgate London.

- Sabotage

I believe the games industry is trying to move away from PCs and blaming the pirates for it. PC gamers are generally mature, discerning and will not accept crap games. This means the devs have to put some effort into their games. Console audiences, on the other hand, are mindless kiddies who will buy anything new provided it has better graphics and more guns in it, longevity or gameplay be damned.

It is much easier to sell a game on consoles because it doesn't need to be good.

- So is this really a problem?

You may say, so what if PC gaming dies? Just get a console and a keyboard and keep playing.

Firstly, until consoles come with a keyboard and mouse in the box, you have to design for the lowest common denominator: the controller with few buttons on it. Have fun.

Secondly, consoles have a short lifespan, so do their games, so you have to live with a world of solely instant gratification games. The fact that you still talk about Titan Quest in your first post, and console games from the era are all dead and forgotten, does mean something. Console games tend to have no substance to them.

Also, most of you are probably of decent age. Do you really want a second TV and a plastic playstation box connected to it? Pressing little buttons on a controller is akin  to playing with toy cars in the eyes of many people.

Lastly, this would signify the death of modding and indie games and maps.

 

forthelulz

the problem is that pc devs have been trying to capture the console kiddie market instead of staying true to what made pc gaming different.

pc gamers are generally older players who graduated from consoles and don't care for "casual" games.

casual games do not breed community. the next best thing to a great pc title is being involved with the online community for said title.

console titles have a short shelf life as compared to pc titles.  they play it for a few months and forget it.

great pc titles are forever.  a console gamer can name his favorite games...but can he name the devs? where the company is located? pc gamers are very loyal to devs who bring good ideas to the table and will support and defend that dev....throughout his career.

pc devs would do good to remember where pc gaming started and the strengths and limitless versatility of this platform.

dumbing down games for the console market won't get that many more sales..........just loose many of your

core fans.

paulscott

indie games will never die on the PC.   Anyone with the ability/knowledge/skills can whip something up that can be played.  The only console that an indy/hobby dev could get their hands into would be the XBOX360 since microsoft is offering a special dev kit/package to these people, and even then it's not much of a threat at all.

smg77

The OP mentions Iron Lore...in my opinion Iron Lore failed not because of piracy but because they made crappy games. Titan Quest was a lame Diablo wannabe and their Dawn of War sequel, Soulstorm, was just awful. One of their developers posted a big long rant about PC piracy on a gaming forum and you could tell he just didn't get it.

rawrxbrad

Originally posted by Xanrae


I'd like to expand on this.
- Graphics
What happens here is that reviewers and rich white kids with GeForce9999XFRGTX ULTRA GIGA TURBO cards dis any game that doesn't have cutting edge graphics. The kids claim that 'this is progress, get a job and buy a real computer'. The reviewers have only about five minutes to play a game (instead of 2 years), so they pay too much attention to the only thing they could possibly notice - graphics. They also get their games for free and have the best gamer rigs in the world at work.
Worse, the first thing you see of a new game is screenshots, then videos. What do you see on either? Not the gameplay, not loot balance, not the skill factor. Just graphics.
For many people with less experience in gaming, and/or the proverbial 6 year old kids, graphics are all that counts because they have no idea about anything else. Junior won't notice that the handling model in his new Need for Speed Turbo Furious Cop Wrecker game is worse than before and the physics are a joke. What counts to him is that 'it looks good'.
As a result, games with mediocre graphics get low scores and bad word of mouth. Not surprising then that developers go for the latest and greatest in graphics instead.
Which leads to positive buzz and... low sales because noone can run the games. (Both Crysis and UT3 bombed badly)
- System price
There is no good reason why a PC should be much more expensive than a console. You can do much more with it, which warrants a higher price, but right now a console costs a few hundred quid and a gamer PC costs 2K and you have to keep upgrading it.
This is the fault of the graphics war. Does WoW have bad graphics? No, it looks better than most thanks to its artistic style. Yet you'll need a super-powered graphics card to play AoC, which looks like garbage but has more zomgpolygons.
- MMOs
Nope. The problem isn't MMOs. The problem is that developers are scared of trying anything new, resulting in a lot of identical games with very short lifespans.
This happens everywhere, but console kiddies are more likely to swallow the recycled crap.
Remember when Starcraft 1 was new and revolutionary? It looks like this time round, Blizzard is dead set on porting it to a 3D engine and calling it quits. We don't want SC in 3D, we want a new and better game. This may well become their first market failure.
- Quality
Hell yes. I didn't know if PCs can feel pain, but after installing the poorly optimised Hellgate London on it, I'm certain of it. Most other games come with all sorts of copy protections that linger and slow down the system.
I'm not even mentioning the many games that simply crash regularly. Yes, my drivers are up to date. No, my Vista installation is as clean as it can be. I am not stupid. Yet somehow we are expected to pay €50 for a game and if it keeps crashing or pausing randomly unless I take care to reboot each time I want to run the game, I should just take it up the ass and wait for the sequel.
- Shareware
I believe games are actually moving back to the old shareware model, but not thanks to developer efforts. Nowadays, you can get a limited singleplayer copy with no additional content and no patches for free. From piratebay. If you want the addons, or go online at all, you'll need a valid serial number and pass a number of checks.
Developers fail to see that multiplayer is the future, and by clinging to outdated single player models, they will forever struggle with piracy.
A recent example from a genre that has always been about single player and refocussed on multiplayer: Need for Speed. All of the Need for Speed games had multiplayer tacked on as an afterthought. The latest installation, Pro Street, is however very multiplayer-centric, featuring the option to share tuning blueprints, all sorts of online ladders, private racedays for friends and more. It is far too complex for most people, who just want to race but can't because the game decides they are no longer allowed to join a raceday in progress. Multiplayer mode is a ghost town.
- Too much multiplayer
This is the other extreme. Many games depend very heavily on other players to make them fun. There was this glut of multiplayer-only games in the early 21st century, but even now, many MMOs are unplayable without other people.
I believe UT3 and other 'second choice' shooters have fallen victim to this. I didn't buy UT3, although I was in the mood for a competitive shooter, because I doubted it would have enough people playing due to the competition from games like CoD. It failed. Did everyone else perhaps think the same way?
A good MMO gives people something to do even when they can't find a group right now. Games that are just multiplayer matchmaking services are very vulnerable to low sales.
- Microtransactions/monthly fees
This must be turning off a lot of people. Noone wants to pay extra after buying the box. Especially if all you get in return is the same balance of power as before, except everyone does 50% more damage and has 50% more life, or everyone's car is 20% faster, or everyone gains 100% more experience.
People feel like they are being swindled and pressured to pay up anyway in order to be competitive. This, I believe, explains the failure of such games as Hellgate London.
- Sabotage
I believe the games industry is trying to move away from PCs and blaming the pirates for it. PC gamers are generally mature, discerning and will not accept crap games. This means the devs have to put some effort into their games. Console audiences, on the other hand, are mindless kiddies who will buy anything new provided it has better graphics and more guns in it, longevity or gameplay be damned.
It is much easier to sell a game on consoles because it doesn't need to be good.
- So is this really a problem?
You may say, so what if PC gaming dies? Just get a console and a keyboard and keep playing.
Firstly, until consoles come with a keyboard and mouse in the box, you have to design for the lowest common denominator: the controller with few buttons on it. Have fun.
Secondly, consoles have a short lifespan, so do their games, so you have to live with a world of solely instant gratification games. The fact that you still talk about Titan Quest in your first post, and console games from the era are all dead and forgotten, does mean something. Console games tend to have no substance to them.
Also, most of you are probably of decent age. Do you really want a second TV and a plastic playstation box connected to it? Pressing little buttons on a controller is akin  to playing with toy cars in the eyes of many people.
Lastly, this would signify the death of modding and indie games and maps.
 

well said