Originally posted by baff 50K USD on their first job straight out of college for the artists. It varies a bit depending where in the world you live. Junior management adds 6-10k, so lead artist etc. And the the boffins, the AI guys, the netcoders the game engine mechanics, they pretty much name their prices. These guys are so hard to find they can name their prices and take the piss with their hours etc. Which is why so many games are just "mods". Just the same game engine as all the others with new artwork. COD4 for example is a Quake 3 mod. So there aren't any clever employee's at all. Just an art factory. Cheap and cheerful, an investors dream. Produced quickly and with low cost labour. They pump these out at speed of one a year. With an established brandname, using an engine that works on all the new platforms too. The publishers made decent a profit on the PC game sales alone. A good place to look for jobs in video games would be www.gamasutra.com. Yuo can check out salaries there.
I don't think you understand game development at all
ESPECIALLY
....if you think making COD4 doesn't take any clever employees
... if you think COD4 was a quick and easy thing to create
Infinity Ward worked on COD4 for 2 years.. another company created COD3...
Infinity Ward's engine for COD4 is NOT a mod of the Quake 3 engine.. it was built from the ground up.
Publishers make tonnes of money... but the actual developers don't.
it is PAINFULLY obvious that you're talking out your butt right now. please stop
Think of that 50k number again.. Most US developers are located in CA... do you know the price of living there? Do you really think that 50k a year is good wage for the expensive price of living in CA + working 60-80 hours a week with no Overtime pay? And guess what.. despite all of that.. your job isn't even secured....
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Do you think I even care about developers personal problems?
Do you think my job is secured? Do you think I get paid overtime? Do you think I live somewhere cheap?
I've lived in San Jose by the way, the cost of living in CA is very cheap compared to where I live (half price), and programmers can expect to earn 25% more and be taxed 20% less.
(They do however work longer hours than they are expected to here) although that really would depend on the job, Ive seen some very underworked people in San Jose.
And yes of course I think 50k a year is good pay for someone's first job. I think it's fantastic pay. You won't find young people with as much money in any other industry on the planet. That's 50 k for a job you can walk into with no qualifications, just a portfolio you made up in your school holidays. What are the other 18 year olds, stacking shelves at Tesco or working behind the bar making? $20k?
Developers make decent pay. All the developers I know are well paid professionals. They drink in the most expensive bars, they wear expensive clothes.
The Development studio bosses I know all own supercars and live in big houses and are around the same age as me.
Who are you trying to kid?
Infinity Ward's engine is the Quake 3 engine. Built from the ground up my arse. That's the ID Tech 3 engine. They bought it "off the shelf". They have modified this version more than the previous two versions to bump up the sound and number of unit's it can display at one time in line with modern hardware capabilites. Presumably they felt this was cheaper than licensing the ID Tech 4 or the ID Tech 5 engine.
COD 4 was quick and easy to create. It's a one year development. There are two parts of the developement that impress me. The art direction, and the quality control. Other than that, it is a formula game. A FPS mod on the quake engine of whihc there scores on the market already.
A one year development is an extremely short time. You might note that development studio's are more normally noted for making expansion packs in this period of time. That's why their games are so short. They don't have time to make the content.
I would be more impressed if I didn't know so many school children who have made their own quake and unreal mods. If I hadn't seen games like Counterstrike or Tac Ops. If I hadn't played literally thousands of homemade fan maps on any number of game engines. If I didn't know better I would think COD4 was difficult to make. Only I do know better.
It took them 1 year to make. It took Valve 8 years to make Halflife 2. It's the difference between a Jackson Pollack and a Rembrandt.
Call of Duty 4 wasn't quick to make. It took them two years to develop, not one. The reason that Call of Duty 3 was made by Treyarch, and not Infinity Ward, is because Activision wanted to give IW the time to make a truly outstanding game. Likewise, Call of Duty 5 will be made by Treyarch again.
Vivendi gave Valve time to make a truely outstanding game.
Vivendi gave Blizzard time to make a truely outstanding game.
Activision gave Infinity Ward time to make a truely mediocre game.
COD was bug free on launch which is saying a lot in todays climate. Activision gave them time for that, (although Treyarch needed longer apparently), but it hasn't given them time for any innovation or any amount of content.
This isn't "a great" game, it's just this years installment of a formula cash cow.
Two years is still quick GL. They don't come much quicker than that.
Vivendi gave Valve time to make a truely outstanding game. Vivendi gave Blizzard time to make a truely outstanding game.
Activision gave Infinity Ward time to make a truely mediocre game.
COD was bug free on launch which is saying a lot in todays climate. Activision gave them time for that, (although Treyarch needed longer apparently), but it hasn't given them time for any innovation or any amount of content. This isn't "a great" game, it's just this years installment of a formula cash cow.
Call of Duty scored a 92.6% on Gamerankings (PC version) and has won multiple Game of the Year Awards. Saying it's Mediocre is downright incorrect.
if Vivendi has given Valve 8 year of development time for Half Life 2, then I can't help but wonder what the heck Valve has been doing in those 8 years because I can't really say that Half Life 2 has 8 years worth of content in it, I finished it in 8 hours (Only 2 hours more then I finished CoD4 singleplayer), and lets not get started on the word multiplayer.
Halife 2 and WoW have all earnt far more awards than COD has.
That COD4 has won any GOTY's at all, says more about the number of PC games released this year than it does about COD.
However, it hasn't won "mulitple" GOTY's it's only won Gamepsy's.
You describe it as "outstanding".
In your own words what stands out about it?
Why is this different to any other kill a zillion badguy shooters out there?
And yes, lets not get started on it's completely substandard multiplayer. Battlefield 2 this is not. This is still a very poor game compared to America's Army. The market is full of games like this. What is "outstanding" about it's multiplayer?
It has a good multiplayer? Hello? Have you tried Planetside yet? Have you installed Quake Wars or Savage 2? Good compared to what..... Halo on the Xbox?
Are there any unique selling points at all?
Here is what I think is unique. The art direction. There are two single player maps that are original. The rolling decks of the oil tanker, and the gunners view from the AC130.
(Although to be fair I've played on rolling decks before in The Ship and the AC130 has been in Virtual Battlespace for years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7XXGFWh_M )
That's it.
All the rest is not outstanding. It is "the same".
Medal of Honour, Medal of Honour: Airborne,COD, COD2, COD4, the same.
What stands out about it's plot, theme or gameplay? What stands out about the graphics, sound or music? What stands out about it's multiplayer? Perhaps it's the AI?
Why does this game stand out from Crysis, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Half Life 2?
Why does it stand out from BattleField 2, Armed Assault and America's Army, Quake Wars?
Answer: it doesn't. It looks very poor indeed compared to them.
It'a good little game with high production values, but it's mediocre to play and nothing to write home about. It's theme is positively juvenile and essentially is right up the average Chuck Norris fan's street. I enjoy Steven Segal movies as much as the next man, of course, but obviously I wouldn't pay to see one.
An average game targetted at the teen market, with below average content and above average production values.
Ask yourself seriously GL, will you still be playing this game in one months time. Once you uninstall it, will you ever re-install it. When you friends come over will you marvel at it with them and play it all through again just so they can see?
I think the main reason why people are downloading illegal software is because the market price is ABSURD. Paying 60€ for a game is far from reasonable. If they lower to price, I think people will actually buy the game instead of downloading it. What do you guys think?
Halife 2 and WoW have all earnt far more awards than COD has. That COD4 has won any GOTY's at all, says more about the number of PC games released this year than it does about COD. However, it hasn't won "mulitple" GOTY's it's only won Gamepsy's.
You describe it as "outstanding". In your own words what stands out about it?
Why is this different to any other kill a zillion badguy shooters out there?
And yes, lets not get started on it's completely substandard multiplayer. Battlefield 2 this is not. This is still a very poor game compared to America's Army. The market is full of games like this. What is "outstanding" about it's multiplayer? It has a good multiplayer? Hello? Have you tried Planetside yet? Have you installed Quake Wars or Savage 2? Good compared to what..... Halo on the Xbox?
Are there any unique selling points at all?
Here is what I think is unique. The art direction. There are two single player maps that are original. The rolling decks of the oil tanker, and the gunners view from the AC130. (Although to be fair I've played on rolling decks before in The Ship and the AC130 has been in Virtual Battlespace for years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7XXGFWh_M )
That's it. All the rest is not outstanding. It is "the same". Medal of Honour, Medal of Honour: Airborne,COD, COD2, COD4, the same.
What stands out about it's plot, theme or gameplay? What stands out about the graphics, sound or music? What stands out about it's multiplayer? Perhaps it's the AI?
Why does this game stand out from Crysis, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Half Life 2? Why does it stand out from BattleField 2, Armed Assault and America's Army, Quake Wars?
Answer: it doesn't. It looks very poor indeed compared to them.
It'a good little game with high production values, but it's mediocre to play and nothing to write home about. It's theme is positively juvenile and essentially is right up the average Chuck Norris fan's street. I enjoy Steven Segal movies as much as the next man, of course, but obviously I wouldn't pay to see one. An average game targetted at the teen market, with below average content and above average production values. Ask yourself seriously GL, will you still be playing this game in one months time. Once you uninstall it, will you ever re-install it. When you friends come over will you marvel at it with them and play it all through again just so they can see? Is it really "great" or just good.
Call of Duty 4 did in fact have competition this year, Including Crysis (91%) The Orange Box (96%), which includes all episodes of Half Life 2, Bioshock (95%) and Halo 3 (93%) So it definitly wasn't short on competition. Gamespy isn't the only one who awarded Call of Duty 4 the game of the year award, it also won GOTY at the acadamy of interactive arts & sciences and has been nominated for many others.
I and many others find Call of Duty 4 vastly superior to Battlefield 2's Multiplayer. Battlefield may have a lot of players playing at one time, but I don't really see the appeal in that. The result is that the maps are a lot bigger, and if you happen to miss out on a vehicle at times...well, I hope you enjoy long tedious walks. What I like about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer the most is the level design. But I don't really play CoD4's multiplayer all that much. I like it, but I'm absolutely terrible at the game. A lot of the fights are over long distances, and my accuraccy is pretty bad. I'm better at, say, games like Halo or Unreal Tournament, which don't require pinpoint accuracy. and CoD4's rating is higher than Battlefield 2's anyway.
Call of Duty 4 isn't innovative, but a game doesn't have to be innovative to be good. Half Life 2 wasn't innovative either. Oh sure it had a gravity gun, and physics based puzzles (AKA time extenders to lengthen the experience). It had the same standard weapons, same standard combat, there was nothing special about it. And lets not even talk about the so called episodic content, in which valve couldn't even be bothered to add any new weapons. But that's okay, because innovation is not what makes those games great.
Call of Duty 4 did in fact have competition this year, Including Crysis (91%) The Orange Box (96%), which includes all episodes of Half Life 2, Bioshock (95%) and Halo 3 (93%) So it definitly wasn't short on competition. Gamespy isn't the only one who awarded Call of Duty 4 the game of the year award, it also won GOTY at the acadamy of interactive arts & sciences and has been nominated for many others.
I and many others find Call of Duty 4 vastly superior to Battlefield 2's Multiplayer. Battlefield may have a lot of players playing at one time, but I don't really see the appeal in that. The result is that the maps are a lot bigger, and if you happen to miss out on a vehicle at times...well, I hope you enjoy long tedious walks. What I like about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer the most is the level design. But I don't really play CoD4's multiplayer all that much. I like it, but I'm absolutely terrible at the game. A lot of the fights are over long distances, and my accuraccy is pretty bad. I'm better at, say, games like Halo or Unreal Tournament, which don't require pinpoint accuracy. and CoD4's rating is higher than Battlefield 2's anyway. Call of Duty 4 isn't innovative, but a game doesn't have to be innovative to be good. Half Life 2 wasn't innovative either. Oh sure it had a gravity gun, and physics based puzzles (AKA time extenders to lengthen the experience). It had the same standard weapons, same standard combat, there was nothing special about it. And lets not even talk about the so called episodic content, in which valve couldn't even be bothered to add any new weapons. But that's okay, because innovation is not what makes those games great.
Who on earth are "the acadamy of interactive arts and sciences". Jimmy Briggs's blog also called COD4 GOTY. lol. Clutching at straws a bit with that one aren't we?
So if you don't enjoy long walks or the aiming system why does COD 4 stand out against Unreal 2007 or any of the other countless deathmatch titles? And if you do, why does it stand out against America's Army? Why does it stand out against GRAW2?
One minute ago you were saying COD4 didn't have a very big singler player, but it was the multiplayer that made it so fabulous and the next you are saying you didn't like the multiplayer enough to play it.
As far as I can tell you have spent 6 hours on the single player and you don't really get into the multiplayer. Which puts you on the same page as me.
I will not pay £35 for 6 hours gameplay. In my opinion anyone who does is a complete muppet. Let alone 6 hours of boring gameplay that I've done before 1,000 times already. And that is why this game isn't breaking any sales records.
I'm willing to make a bet. I bet you that you didn't buy COD4 for the PC either.
COD4 hasn't sold anything like as many copies as BF2. BF2 sold more in it's first month than COD 4 ever will. It's had more of your precious GOTY's and more of your GOTY nominations.
Half life 2, was innovative.
It introduced "the physics engine". It introduced new graphical special effects (refraction) and also made technological leaps with it's facial animations. It introduced two new gameplay elements to the genre. The physics puzzles and the "intermission break" vehicle rides. The gravity gun was nothing like "the same weapons" as had come before. What nonsense.
Halflife 2 was innovative in a number of area's. Including, theme, AI, artwork and gameplay. Three years after launch Halflife 2 is still on sale on the top shelves of shops as part of the Orange Box collection. I notice COD or COD 2 aren't on sale anywhere. COD 4 won't be either. I wonder why.
Btw, "Halo 3" hasn't been released. How exactly has Halo 3 been competition for COD4?
Your basic problem, is you that you only know about console games and not PC games.
You think console games make good PC games, but they don't. And when we are discussing PC games, you are not, you are discussing your console game that happens to be available on PC too.
COD4 may very well be an excellent console title that you are enjoying, and it may indeed compare well to the other console titles of Bioshock, the Orange Box and Halo 3, but this has absolutely no effect on PC game piracy.
Your experience of PC game titles is almost exclusively based upon games that you have played on the Xbox.
Comeback when you have a clue.
P.S. you wouldn't have trouble with accurate aiming systems if you played FPS on a PC.
Console games don't sell well on PC. It's not because of piracy, it's not because PC's aren't powerful enough to run them. It's because they are console games.
PC gamers avoid any cross platform title on principle.
COD4 is a great console game. But it's also a mediocre PC game. The audience has different expectations.
Do you think I even care about developers personal problems? Do you think my job is secured? Do you think I get paid overtime? Do you think I live somewhere cheap?
I've lived in San Jose by the way, the cost of living in CA is very cheap compared to where I live (half price), and programmers can expect to earn 25% more and be taxed 20% less. (They do however work longer hours than they are expected to here) although that really would depend on the job, Ive seen some very underworked people in San Jose.
And yes of course I think 50k a year is good pay for someone's first job. I think it's fantastic pay. You won't find young people with as much money in any other industry on the planet. That's 50 k for a job you can walk into with no qualifications, just a portfolio you made up in your school holidays. What are the other 18 year olds, stacking shelves at Tesco or working behind the bar making? $20k? There aren't any 18 year developers at any companies. Another thing is getting the actual job is TERRIBLY difficult. You have to be on the top of your game.. have top notch demo reels to show plus the grades to back you up. Not ever Comp Engineer graduating can become a game developer. Developers make decent pay. All the developers I know are well paid professionals. They drink in the most expensive bars, they wear expensive clothes. The Development studio bosses I know all own supercars and live in big houses and are around the same age as me. Who are you trying to kid?
Infinity Ward's engine is the Quake 3 engine. Built from the ground up my arse. That's the ID Tech 3 engine. They bought it "off the shelf". They have modified this version more than the previous two versions to bump up the sound and number of unit's it can display at one time in line with modern hardware capabilites. Presumably they felt this was cheaper than licensing the ID Tech 4 or the ID Tech 5 engine. Nope. The very first game was the Quake 3 engine. Then COD2 built an engine from scratch but borrowed many things from the quake 3 engine. And COD4 is an extension of their COD2 engine. An analogy would be They built their own house.. but they brought the couches and beds from the old house.
COD 4 was quick and easy to create. It's a one year development. There are two parts of the developement that impress me. The art direction, and the quality control. Other than that, it is a formula game. A FPS mod on the quake engine of whihc there scores on the market already. It was a 2 year build... A one year development is an extremely short time. You might note that development studio's are more normally noted for making expansion packs in this period of time. That's why their games are so short. They don't have time to make the content. 2 years I would be more impressed if I didn't know so many school children who have made their own quake and unreal mods. If I hadn't seen games like Counterstrike or Tac Ops. If I hadn't played literally thousands of homemade fan maps on any number of game engines. If I didn't know better I would think COD4 was difficult to make. Only I do know better. 2 years It took them 1 year to make. It took Valve 8 years to make Halflife 2. It's the difference between a Jackson Pollack and a Rembrandt. 2 years.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
The point however remains the same. 2 years is still a very short development time. Just what investors like.
I've met 18 year olds at Ubi and 18 year olds at Sony and 18 year olds at Acclaim.
What's graduating got to do anything? Most artists don't attend "Dev school", they learn how to do it at home on their PC's "making mods" and then send off their portfolio's. I don't know of any artists with any "grades".
And no doing the job is not TERRIBLY DIFFICULT. A texture artist is a texture artist. You don't have to be at the top of any game. You are a cog in the machine, all you have to do is chug out textures from 9 till 5 and then go home.
All a model skinner has to do is draw the uniforms. Uniform after uniform from 9 till 5.
Fansites are simply rammed full of level designers, model makers skinners and scripted all desperate for the chance to get into the industry.
While there are obviously jobs more difficult than others, it's essentially factory work. The artists are on a production line.
Computer engineering, the C++ coders etc, those are the clever guys. They might have grades and degree's. They earn more than the artists, but the bulk of the team is made up of artists. Artists are two a penny lowest form of life other than a tester. If a game is essentially a mod, like Gears of War or COD only Artists are really needed. There isn't going to be much call for any "computer engineering".
COD 4's engine is not built from scratch. It is a customised version of the ID Tech 3 engine. You may wish to believe it is, the sales and marketing team may wish you to believe it is, but it isn't.
A better analogy would be, they put in their own sofa's and couch to ID's existing house. It does more the same than it does different. It's more or less identical but the new one can handle more polygons. (IE the framerate cap has been removed because hardware limitiations are no longer what they used to be when Quake 3 came out). I don;t think either COD 1 or COD 2 have had much customisation to the engine at all.
What differences have you seen? How do you think it has changed?
Call of Duty 4 did in fact have competition this year, Including Crysis (91%) The Orange Box (96%), which includes all episodes of Half Life 2, Bioshock (95%) and Halo 3 (93%) So it definitly wasn't short on competition. Gamespy isn't the only one who awarded Call of Duty 4 the game of the year award, it also won GOTY at the acadamy of interactive arts & sciences and has been nominated for many others.
I and many others find Call of Duty 4 vastly superior to Battlefield 2's Multiplayer. Battlefield may have a lot of players playing at one time, but I don't really see the appeal in that. The result is that the maps are a lot bigger, and if you happen to miss out on a vehicle at times...well, I hope you enjoy long tedious walks. What I like about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer the most is the level design. But I don't really play CoD4's multiplayer all that much. I like it, but I'm absolutely terrible at the game. A lot of the fights are over long distances, and my accuraccy is pretty bad. I'm better at, say, games like Halo or Unreal Tournament, which don't require pinpoint accuracy. and CoD4's rating is higher than Battlefield 2's anyway. Call of Duty 4 isn't innovative, but a game doesn't have to be innovative to be good. Half Life 2 wasn't innovative either. Oh sure it had a gravity gun, and physics based puzzles (AKA time extenders to lengthen the experience). It had the same standard weapons, same standard combat, there was nothing special about it. And lets not even talk about the so called episodic content, in which valve couldn't even be bothered to add any new weapons. But that's okay, because innovation is not what makes those games great.
Who on earth are "the acadamy of interactive arts and sciences". Jimmy Briggs's blog also called COD4 GOTY. lol. Clutching at straws a bit with that one aren't we?
So if you don't enjoy long walks or the aiming system why does COD 4 stand out against Unreal 2007 or any of the other countless deathmatch titles? And if you do, why does it stand out against America's Army? Why does it stand out against GRAW2?
One minute ago you were saying COD4 didn't have a very big singler player, but it was the multiplayer that made it so fabulous and the next you are saying you didn't like the multiplayer enough to play it.
As far as I can tell you have spent 6 hours on the single player and you don't really get into the multiplayer. Which puts you on the same page as me.
I will not pay £35 for 6 hours gameplay. In my opinion anyone who does is a complete muppet. Let alone 6 hours of boring gameplay that I've done before 1,000 times already. And that is why this game isn't breaking any sales records.
I'm willing to make a bet. I bet you that you didn't buy COD4 for the PC either.
COD4 hasn't sold anything like as many copies as BF2. BF2 sold more in it's first month than COD 4 ever will. It's had more of your precious GOTY's and more of your GOTY nominations.
Half life 2, was innovative.
It introduced "the physics engine". It introduced new graphical special effects (refraction) and also made technological leaps with it's facial animations. It introduced two new gameplay elements to the genre. The physics puzzles and the "intermission break" vehicle rides. The gravity gun was nothing like "the same weapons" as had come before. What nonsense.
Halflife 2 was innovative in a number of area's. Including, theme, AI, artwork and gameplay. Three years after launch Halflife 2 is still on sale on the top shelves of shops as part of the Orange Box collection. I notice COD or COD 2 aren't on sale anywhere. COD 4 won't be either. I wonder why.
Btw, "Halo 3" hasn't been released. How exactly has Halo 3 been competition for COD4?
Your basic problem, is you that you only know about console games and not PC games.
You think console games make good PC games, but they don't. And when we are discussing PC games, you are not, you are discussing your console game that happens to be available on PC too.
COD4 may very well be an excellent console title that you are enjoying, and it may indeed compare well to the other console titles of Bioshock, the Orange Box and Halo 3, but this has absolutely no effect on PC game piracy.
Your experience of PC game titles is almost exclusively based upon games that you have played on the Xbox.
Comeback when you have a clue.
P.S. you wouldn't have trouble with accurate aiming systems if you played FPS on a PC.
Console games don't sell well on PC. It's not because of piracy, it's not because PC's aren't powerful enough to run them. It's because they are console games.
PC gamers avoid any cross platform title on principle.
COD4 is a great console game. But it's also a mediocre PC game. The audience has different expectations.
Your attempts to claim Half Life 2 as innovative are laughable, to say the least. Graphics have absolutely nothing to do with gameplay. and hell, even the first Halo had vehicle sections. The Gravity gun? Please, it's one weapon that isn't needed in the first place besides to solve puzzles, this is what we call a gimmick. You know. CoD4 hasn't sold as much as Battlefield 2 because Call of Duty 4 is simply downloaded, it's that simple.
About the Multiplayer, I had a good time for a while, But as I said I stopped playing because I'm not very good at it, not because I'm not impressed by it.
About Halo 3, Halo 3 was not released on the PC but it was released in the same year, and thus competed with CoD4 for GOTY awards.
Call of Duty 4 is a first person shooter, its right up the PC gamers alley. Call of Duty 4 isn't a console game. Just because it's avaible on consoles doesn't make it a console game, Infinity Ward has NEVER developed a console only game.
The problem here is this baff: You simply don't know what you're talking about. Call of Duty 4 has received an average score (PC version, Not Xbox or PS version) of 93%. It IS a good game, it's that simple. Its focus is on multiplayer and its famous for that. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it's a bad game. Did it ever occur to you that the game just might not be for you?
You can claim "It's a poor game, because look! this game of 3 years ago sold better!", but meanwhile reviewers are proving you wrong over and over again. In fact, why don't you send a letter to PC gamer, saying that their review score of 93% is totally off.
Heck, even Zero Punctuation couldn't bring himself to rip CoD4 apart, and even he was impressed:
What does the list say? mm, Number 1: WoW, Number 2: CoD4 and..what is that on number 3? ah yes, Call of Duty 2. but hey, Battlefield 2 is on number 4, with not even half of CoD2's numbers.
You can quote everyone elses opinion, but you can't face the reality of your own.
What does Xire show me? That WoW has a better friendslist function than COD4?
That it's a newer game than BF2? Where is COD2 on Xfire? that's the same age (or younger). Where do you think COD 4 will be on Xfire in two years time? Why is Battlefield 2 stil int he sales charts and COD 2 nowhere to be seen?
COD 4 isn't right up PC gamers alley. It's right up console gamers alley. It's being outsold on console at 10-1 to PC. You like console games, and surprise surprise you think COD4 is the bee's knee's. I don't and surprise surprise, I'm not impressed by it.
I too would be willing to download COD 4 for free, I just wouldn't be willing to pay for it. Unlike console owners who all think it's well worth the money by the millions.And why not? What's the competiton in consoleland....Gears of War? Halo. Lmao. You're right COD4 is an excellent game if we are going to put it like that!
The question here is not whether the game is worth downloading for free, and how many people believe it to be worth downloading for free, it is how many people are willing to pay for it.
And this is $100 question, or rather this is the $50 question, a question to which about half a million PC gamers are going to say yes to. Same as last time. And another half miilion will say yes when the price goes down.
When Battlefield asked the same question of course, substantially more people replied yes.
Ask yourself for a minute why the best selling game ever isn't even on your list of piracy hits. Ask yourself why Battlefield and Quake Wars aren't there either.
Ask yourself why Football Manager 2007, an emminently pirateable game isn't on that list despite outselling COD4.
Why didn't COD4 sell 8 million copies on PC already, when it did on console? and when PC games are the top sellers in the market place.
Because it's a console game. Because it is a mediocre PC title. Because it is nothing new. Because it is not great value. Because there are too many better games on the market. Because it doesn't have an intresting theme. Because PC gamers aren't that intrested in it.
It's a no brainer pick up and play shooter. It has the kind of multiplayer that excites console players and leaves PC players feeling ripped off. It has no depth or replayability. No amount of content, no inspired theme or elements of simulation.
This is a kiddy game. The kind of thing I would buy a teenager. Sure, you can sell it for a profit to the PC market, but you will get more for it on consoles.
It's not that I don't like it, I do like it. But I would never buy it.
You review likes it, but you got bored of it. You can quote everyone elses opinion, but you can't face the reality of your own.
What does Xire show me? That WoW has a better friendslist function than COD4? That it's a newer game than BF2? Where is COD2 on Xfire? that's the same age. Where do you think COD 4 will be on Xfire in two years time?
COD 4 isn't right up PC gamers alley. It's right up console gamers alley. It's being outsold on console at 10-1 to PC. You like console games, and surprise surprise oyu think COD4 is the bee's knee's. I don't and surprise surprise, I'm not impressed by it. I too would be willing to download COD 4 for free, I just wouldn't be willing to pay for it. Unlike console owners who all think it's well worth the money by the millions.
The question here is not whether the game is worth downloading for free, and how many people believe it to be worth downloading for free, it is how many people are willing to pay for it. And this is $100 question, or rather this is the $50 question, a question to which about half a million PC gamers are going to say yes to. Same as last time. And another half miilion will say yes when the price goes down. When Battlefield asked the same question of course, substantially more people replied yes. Ask yourself for a minute why the best selling game ever isn't even on your list of piracy hits. Ask yourself why Battlefield and Quake Wars aren't there either. Ask yourself why Football Manager 2007, an emminently pirateable game isn't on that list despite outselling COD4.
Why didn't COD4 sell 8 million copies on PC already, when it did on console? Because it's a console game. Because it is a mediocre PC title. Because it is nothing new. Because it is not great value. Because there are too many better games on the market. Because it doesn't have an intresting theme. Because PC gamers are that intrested in it.
I already explained why I don't play it, it's not because I think it's a bad game.
I already pointed out where CoD2 is, its on number 3, right below Call of Duty 4 and 2 spots above Battlefield 2.
I like console games and PC games and surprise, I like Call of Duty 4. There are thousands of PC gamers who enjoy PC games and surprise, they like Call of Duty 4 as well. It's funny that you somehow appointed yourself as a representation of every PC gamer out there.
I can't really comment on Battlefield 2 or Quake Wars because I don't know if pirated versions of those games can be played online, probably not. (call of Duty 4 apparently can be played online if downloaded), and aside from that, Battlefield 2 is a very old game, and not every old game is still being downloaded today.
Fottball managed 2007 outsold CoD4? We don't know, Infinity Ward never released actual PC sale numbers as far as I'm aware.
Ofcourse Console Call of Duty 4 outsells the PC version, that's where we get back to the main arguement: Piracy.
I can't face the reality? You want to know the reality? The reality is a 93% score (www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/939217.asp )and game of the year award, that's the reality.
It's not a bad game it's just not good enough for you to play. Righto.
Actions speak louder than words.
I represent this PC gamer. But I'm by no means alone as the only PC game who doesn't buy console ports.
Why do you think they made a seperate PC game version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter?
Another modern war shooter? Because their market research told them that PC gamers won't buy a cross plaform game in the kind of numbers they are looking to sell.
They had tried it with Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas and failed to make an impact on the PC audience. (Despite Rainbow Six being my favourite XBox 360 game, I wouldn't touch it on my PC, it blows).
PC elitism isn't a new concept to you GL, I'm not the first person you have heard it from.
Call of Duty has always been better received on console. COD2 broke Xbox 360 sales records. 1.4 of the 2 million copies sold where on the Xbox 360. The rest having been split between Xbox and PC.
Football manager outsold COD. Football manager outsold everything. We do know. You provided the links to NPD and ESA's figures for 2007.
We also know that COD 4 sold 383,000 copies on PC by Christmas. Do you think COD and COD2 also sold this many by Christmas? or do you think they had sold 8 milliion copies too.
The COD4 is set to sell more copies of it's PC version than COD 2 did. If it hasn't already.
Piracy or no piracy, it's selling better on PC than it did last time round.
Whinney developers mate. They are all the same, they see piracy and they start bleating how it is ruining their business and stealing all their money. And yet, year on year they sell more each time.
It's not a bad game it's just not good enough for you to play. Actions speak louder than words.
I represent this PC gamer. But I'm by no means alone as the only PC game who doesn't buy console ports. Why do you think they made a seperate PC game version of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter? Another modern war shooter? Because their market research told them that PC gamers won't buy a cross plaform game in the kind of numbers they are looking to sell. They had tried it with Rainbow Six Vegas and failed to make an impact on the PC audience. (Despite Rainbow Six being my favourite XBox 360 game, I wouldn't touch it on my PC). PC elitism isn't a new concept to you GL, I'm not the first person you have heard it from.
Call of Duty has always been better received on console. COD2 broke Xbox 360 sales records. 1.4 of the 2 million copies sold where on the Xbox 360. The rest having been split between Xbox and PC.
Football manager outsold COD. Football manager outsold everything. We do know. You provided the links to NPD and ESA's figures for 2007.
We also know that COD 4 sold 383,000 copies on PC by Christmas. Do you think COD and COD2 also sold this many by Christmas? or do you think they had sold 8 milliion copies too. The COD4 is set to sell more copies of it's PC version than COD 2 did. Piracy or no piracy, it's selling better than it did last time round. Whinney developers mate. They are all the same, they see piracy and they start bleating how it is ruining their business and stealing all their money. And yet, year on year they sell more each time.
They made a seperate version because it's a franchise thar primarily exists on the PC. It's different because it was supposed to appeal to fans of the franchise, where something new was attempted on the consoles since it was like a new franchise to console gamers anyway.
PC elitismt isn't a new concept to me, however it increased significantly when developers started to favor consoles over PC.
What I find quite funny is just how predictable PC elitism is. Whenever a developer complains about piracy or when a game doesn't meet expected sales you can bet your right arm that PC elitist will blame it on the quality of the game, and that PC gamers have "Higher standards then console gamers". because the term "under the radar" and "underrated" doesn't exist in the official PC elitist dictionary 2nd edition, and sure, 80% of the people may pirate a game, but that's no excuse for bad sales, oh no it isn't, that's impossible.
While I'm more then willing to believe football manager outsold all in Europe...in the US? I doubt it. They sell more each year? Well Infinity Ward developer didn't complain about not selling enough on PC, they never did, they complained about how large amount of people playing the game online pirated the game.
""It blows me away at the amount of people willing to steal games (or anything) simply because it's not physical or it's on the safety of the internet to do."
The post was headlined: They wonder why people don't make PC games any more
Guess what? The next game they make will be available on PC too. Money talks.
Ghost Recon was PC title.
Ghost Recon 2 an Xbox title.
COD is also a franchise title that started off as a PC title. It is also an FPS. A tactical shooter and inthe case of COD 4, a modern combat game available on multiple platforms.
They have the same target markets.
The thing you don't realise is I've been listening to developers blame piracy for lack of sales since before PC's ever existed. Since before consoles. For you this whole topic is just part of your Console pwns PC tirade. The rest of us are primarily discussing the effects of piracy.
I'm not telling you that piracy isn't killing the PC games industry because I want to encourage more developers to make games for the PC. (Although I do). I'm telling you this because the sales figures don't back up the argument and that in the entire 25 years I've been listening to this same old story, they never have.
No matter how plausable the reasons for why piracy is killing the software industry, and PC games in particular sound, each one is confounded by the increase in sales of PC games, year upon year.
Football manager outsold everything. Everywhere.
It had the most sales of any game world wide. So if you add up COD in both Europe and the U.S., Football Manager wins.
FYI 60% of all PC games are sold in Europe. American sales haven't been centre stage for PC game developers for almost 5 years now. European PC gamers like me are less intrested in U.S. sales.
You can't compare piracy of older years with piracy today. Nowadays nearly everyone has access to high speed internet and bittorrent. Game development obviously has become much more expensive and piracy is now much more accessible. Consoles and PC used to be two complete different things, with two different audiences but that's simply no longer the case. A large part of the console audience enjoys the same games PC gamers do.
For instance, you seem to be very fond of Half Life 2 and the Orange Box, and you seem to use it as an example for innovation. If the audiences are so different, then how come The Orange Box sold 1.5 million copies on consoles? Console gamers and PC gamers when, talking in terms of FPS, like the same things...only difference is that console gamers actually buy the game as opposed to downloading it.
Also, Call of Duty 4 is the best selling game of 2007, not Football manager.
I can think of a few reasons why Ubisoft made two version. This way they can try out new stuff and stay loyal at the same time. Trying something new with a franchise is always a tricky thing. Infinity Ward simply played it differently and went to see and look if the games did well on both platforms.
Also I'm not back peddling at all, Infinity Ward doesn't complain about the sales in there so we don't know the sales numbers on PC. They complain about the huge amount of piracy.
Also, According to Moore, PC game sales have actually declined.
I can compare piracy of older years to todays I just did.
You found an article putting todays piracy at a level of 80%, I found one putting 1995's at 78%.
Consoles and PC's are still two completely different audiences. There are however people who still own and enjoy both and always have been.
I can believe console gamers will buy Halflife 2.
But PC gamers still won't buy Halo.
Because what is innovative on the console, was innovative on the PC 3 years ago. It isn't a static market and the pecking order doesn't work in reverse. Gears of War is not about to sell 2 million copies on the PC.
Half life 2 was a best selling PC, it broke all previous sales records. Pc games bought it in it's millions. They are still buying it, 3 years on.
You might notice exactly how many games do break all previous sales records. The market is still growing, it happens 3 times a year.
Infinity Ward complained about piracy in a thread titled no wonder people won't make PC games. You understood that when you started this thread, now you are back peddling becuase it turns out their PC sales were actually excellent, their best yet, profitable in their own right and now the dev's just look stupid.
You can think of as many reasons as you like why Ubisoft made two versions. I will tell you the actual reason. Because their market research told them to.
They went the console route and it lost them their share of the PC game market for the Tom Clancy franchise. They wanted to get it back.
They asked the PC gamers what they wanted in the next Ghost Recon Title and all the PC gamers to a man said, "no more console ports". All the reviews of their console ports said "crappy console port". When they checked their sales figures, they found that the console ports hadn't sold.
That's it. Thats the reason. No need for you to think. No need for me to address this with you further. Look it up for yourself if you like. No need for you to make idle conjecture.
Trying something new has nothing to do with anything. They made a franchise title. The object is not to try something new but to make more of the same.
MMORPG subscritption was widely heralded as the savoiur of PC gaming about 2-3 years ago. Is that an old interview or something?
At which point all the publishers, excited by the runaway and highly profitable success of WoW all embarked upon making their own titles.
3 years on, it's to pay back the investors time and as we have seen with Microsoft dropping Marvel and Vanguard, that little investment bubble is over. MMOROG's are a saturated market with the current dominant product (WoW) so far in advance of the competition that new titles that can steal it's customers away are pretty unlikely. Publishers are dropping all those mmorpg's.
But someting along the lines of a requires login and authentication service is clearly the way forward if piracy is your prime concern. Hence the Battlefield and Quake Wars games, and the multiplayer elements of COD have all been pretty much unaffected by piracy.
COD 4 is not the best selling game of 2007. It's not even in the right league. to give you some idea, Wii Sports sold 17 million copies.
Whenever a developer complains about piracy or when a game doesn't meet expected sales you can bet your right arm that PC elitist will blame it on the quality of the game, and that PC gamers have "Higher standards then console gamers".
Speaking as someone who plays both console and PC games, the PC gamer in me does indeed have higher expectations of a game made for PC, and rightly so.
When I play a console game, I respect the fact that the graphics may come up short compared to PC, that the AI may come up short to PC, that the length of gameplay may come up short to PC, etc.
This is because consoles are limited hardware wise in what a game made for a console can achieve.
On the PC front, my computer can smoke the best console graphics wise, has better processing power for better and varied AI than any console processor can maintain, has phenomenally more memory and storage capacity than any console which allows for more assets, content, and gameplay length than a console.
Therefore, when a game is made for PC it is expected to have more in terms of everything compared to if it were made for a console.
Baff I'm really tired of your stupid arguments.. You say COD4 made profit with their PC sales alone.. Sure.. Thats because the price is split between three platforms...
I can almost PROMISE you that if it was an ONLY PC title.. then they would not have made a profit.
Piracy and lack of sustainable sales on PC is the REASON why so many developers HAVE to put games on Console
C&C3, Oblivion, Monkey Island, Crysis, FarCry, HALF LIFE, Rainbow Six, FEAR, GRAW.... PC developers HATE consoles..
Valve among other companies complained for days and days about 360 development, Then they complained for days and days about PS3 development... But they HAVE to put their games on these consoles WHY? Because game development costs have sky rocketted... pretty much all mainstream games are now in the range of 10-20 million dollars. When you sell horribly like Crysis did (they sold 1m to retailers not to consumers)... And have a couple hundred thousand pirated copies. The PC business is just NOT sustainable without putting games on Consoles..
And guess what.. .Soon enough.. because of people like you who continue to deny the existance of any problems in the PC industry... people either outright leave.. OR they bastardize the game and make it simple for the console players.. which is exactly what happened with Rainbow Six, which is exactly what happened with GRAW (which sold like crap on PC btw), which is exactly what happened with the elder scrolls, which is what's about to happen with Sim City, which is what happened with COD4, which is what is going to happen with Battlefield Bad Company, Which is what happened with BioShock, Which is happened to Far Cry ala Instincts, Which is what's going to happen with the next total Annhialation/ Supreme Commander...etc etc etc...
IGN: There are a lot of RTS games being brought over to the console this year. Do you ever see the RTS being as big on the console as it is now on the PC?
Chris Taylor:Well one of the key things that is really affecting the economics and the success of gaming in general is piracy on the PC. So one of the reasons we'll see RTSs on the console is because people can't pirate it. That's why we're going to see a lot more of everything on the console. When you look at the sales of really hardcore games like Crysis and you think, "Wow, those games should have sold a lot more," you realize that's probably due in large part to piracy. And you realize that a game like Crysis would have done its true numbers if it had launched on console first.
It's just a good business decision to have your game of any kind on a console where you can't pirate it. When you start to refine the control system and you start to take away the barrier of the control system and you start to make that a non-issue, just like we did with first-person shooters, and it becomes more about the game experience and less about the interface, you start to go to the platform where the economics of where the gaming base is.
Yes Baff.. its because of people like you who pretend there is no problem...
Please tell me about how bad a game Crysis is or how easy it was to create.. or how its running an outdated engine.. which would justify your pirating.. and explain its horrible sales..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Cryssis is selling quite nicely. It's in the top ten on all sales charts and has been since launch. I fully expect it to still be there in a years time.
Your problem is, you've got so used to hearing games break the world sales record on their first day, that if they don't, you think something has gone wildly wrong.
I think Cryssis will be a slow burner due to the hardware specs. Not everybody has the big hardware to run it, but all the people who buy the new hardware will then go and buy it. I expect it to make most of it's sales in the OEM market packaged with GFX cards and Soundcards etc just as Unreal and Doom3 did.
You know, the same way you said Windows sells so many.
Cod 4 has sold 1/3-1/2 a million copies on PC. That alone pays for the whole development and then some.
Not only has it paid for the entire development on all platforms it has also earnt the owner of Infinity Ward a new Ferrari and a new mansion from just those royalties. If you do the maths before getting smart with your mouth you won't get so annoyed so fast.
What happened with Rainbow Six is that the core programmers (the smart ones) all retired when they sold their company to the publisher. The game was then made by the art deptartment (Ubi Montreal) as a series of mods only. Because they were unable to update their game engine, to stay cutting edge, they took a sideways step and used the existing Ghost Recon engine to make Ghost Recon 2 on the XBox. (free money!).
Unable to to make a new and advanced PC engine they then abandoned the project and went on to make a Rainbow Six mod on the Unreal engine, RavenShield. It sold quite well, although not half as well as Ghost Recon, and they released it on console also. Where it sold well also.
They went on to make the next two versions using their propietry engine for one and the unreal engine again for the other, but by this time all the original programmer were gone. (The project leader had been a beta tester on the original games). R6 Lockdown was a complete flop and R6 Vegas only sold on the XBOX 360. R6 Lockdown was panned for having an out of date game engine and R6 Vegas (and Lockdown) was panned for being a console port with no PC support.
This is classic franchise stuff. When you sell your company, you leave at the same time. It get's brain drained. Expect the same sort of thing to come with the Battlefield franchise now that Dice have sold it to EA.
Ubi did some soul searching for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. It had learnt that PC community had lost trust with the Tom Clancy Franchise and stopped buying the titles. So responding to the demand it made a completely seperate and simultaneous game development for GRAW PC. By doing this and releasing both GRAW's at the same time the company could share the cost of advertising and certain elements of the development (Voice acting, box art etc), between the titles.
As it happened the PC version, despite embracing some of the the lastest graphical technology (Ageia) was not well recieved. It's basic problem is it was made on the same timescale as the console version, meaning in order to keep it's cost sharing it had to be made and released in under 2 years also.
PC games are bigger than console games. And more complicated. While the console Version was a mod of an existing and well used game engine, the PC version was hand made from a racing car engine. The game released buggy and the develeopment company never managed to hire a decent netcoder, making the multiplayer very unreliable. (Netcoders are like gold dust).
The console version was a big hit, and the PC version sold enough to warrant a sequal too. But the new dev team for the PC version never managed to live up to the high standards of the original, and I suspect we won't be seeing any more from them on this title.
I'm not pretending to you that piracy is not a problem or that it does not damage sales. I'm just pointing out that lost sales aren't what is important. Sales made are.
It doesn't matter how many millions of copies are pirated as long as the company sells enough to make a profit, more games will be made. COD has made a massive profit. Even excluding all the console copies sold it has made a massive profit.
There isn't a problem. It's a very profitable and expanding business. As it grows piracy grows with it. All known dev's always get really wound up by it, but they still get paid well. They still make more games. Ultimately the sales figures don't support that it is the big threat to the industry publishers and developers would have you believe.
Before you start wildly attributing an slack off in PC sales to everything under the sun you can imagine. Piracy, the uberness of console Hardware etc. try and remember that we predicted the slow down of PC titles for the year period around the next gen console launches. We aren't expecting PC games to be selling as strongly as usual with all this new and exciting competition in the market. This isn't the first time it has happened. Mass piracy isn't new either. Nothing to see here. just business as usual.
Comments
I don't think you understand game development at all
ESPECIALLY
....if you think making COD4 doesn't take any clever employees
... if you think COD4 was a quick and easy thing to create
Infinity Ward worked on COD4 for 2 years.. another company created COD3...
Infinity Ward's engine for COD4 is NOT a mod of the Quake 3 engine.. it was built from the ground up.
Publishers make tonnes of money... but the actual developers don't.
it is PAINFULLY obvious that you're talking out your butt right now. please stop
Think of that 50k number again.. Most US developers are located in CA... do you know the price of living there? Do you really think that 50k a year is good wage for the expensive price of living in CA + working 60-80 hours a week with no Overtime pay? And guess what.. despite all of that.. your job isn't even secured....
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Do you think I even care about developers personal problems?
Do you think my job is secured? Do you think I get paid overtime? Do you think I live somewhere cheap?
I've lived in San Jose by the way, the cost of living in CA is very cheap compared to where I live (half price), and programmers can expect to earn 25% more and be taxed 20% less.
(They do however work longer hours than they are expected to here) although that really would depend on the job, Ive seen some very underworked people in San Jose.
And yes of course I think 50k a year is good pay for someone's first job. I think it's fantastic pay. You won't find young people with as much money in any other industry on the planet. That's 50 k for a job you can walk into with no qualifications, just a portfolio you made up in your school holidays. What are the other 18 year olds, stacking shelves at Tesco or working behind the bar making? $20k?
Developers make decent pay. All the developers I know are well paid professionals. They drink in the most expensive bars, they wear expensive clothes.
The Development studio bosses I know all own supercars and live in big houses and are around the same age as me.
Who are you trying to kid?
Infinity Ward's engine is the Quake 3 engine. Built from the ground up my arse. That's the ID Tech 3 engine. They bought it "off the shelf". They have modified this version more than the previous two versions to bump up the sound and number of unit's it can display at one time in line with modern hardware capabilites. Presumably they felt this was cheaper than licensing the ID Tech 4 or the ID Tech 5 engine.
COD 4 was quick and easy to create. It's a one year development. There are two parts of the developement that impress me. The art direction, and the quality control. Other than that, it is a formula game. A FPS mod on the quake engine of whihc there scores on the market already.
A one year development is an extremely short time. You might note that development studio's are more normally noted for making expansion packs in this period of time. That's why their games are so short. They don't have time to make the content.
I would be more impressed if I didn't know so many school children who have made their own quake and unreal mods. If I hadn't seen games like Counterstrike or Tac Ops. If I hadn't played literally thousands of homemade fan maps on any number of game engines. If I didn't know better I would think COD4 was difficult to make. Only I do know better.
It took them 1 year to make. It took Valve 8 years to make Halflife 2. It's the difference between a Jackson Pollack and a Rembrandt.
Call of Duty 4 wasn't quick to make. It took them two years to develop, not one. The reason that Call of Duty 3 was made by Treyarch, and not Infinity Ward, is because Activision wanted to give IW the time to make a truly outstanding game. Likewise, Call of Duty 5 will be made by Treyarch again.
Two years is still quick GL.
They don't come much quicker than that.
Vivendi gave Valve time to make a truely outstanding game.
Vivendi gave Blizzard time to make a truely outstanding game.
Activision gave Infinity Ward time to make a truely mediocre game.
COD was bug free on launch which is saying a lot in todays climate. Activision gave them time for that, (although Treyarch needed longer apparently), but it hasn't given them time for any innovation or any amount of content.
This isn't "a great" game, it's just this years installment of a formula cash cow.
Call of Duty scored a 92.6% on Gamerankings (PC version) and has won multiple Game of the Year Awards. Saying it's Mediocre is downright incorrect.
if Vivendi has given Valve 8 year of development time for Half Life 2, then I can't help but wonder what the heck Valve has been doing in those 8 years because I can't really say that Half Life 2 has 8 years worth of content in it, I finished it in 8 hours (Only 2 hours more then I finished CoD4 singleplayer), and lets not get started on the word multiplayer.
Halife 2 and WoW have all earnt far more awards than COD has.
That COD4 has won any GOTY's at all, says more about the number of PC games released this year than it does about COD.
However, it hasn't won "mulitple" GOTY's it's only won Gamepsy's.
You describe it as "outstanding".
In your own words what stands out about it?
Why is this different to any other kill a zillion badguy shooters out there?
And yes, lets not get started on it's completely substandard multiplayer. Battlefield 2 this is not. This is still a very poor game compared to America's Army. The market is full of games like this. What is "outstanding" about it's multiplayer?
It has a good multiplayer? Hello? Have you tried Planetside yet? Have you installed Quake Wars or Savage 2? Good compared to what..... Halo on the Xbox?
Are there any unique selling points at all?
Here is what I think is unique. The art direction. There are two single player maps that are original. The rolling decks of the oil tanker, and the gunners view from the AC130.
(Although to be fair I've played on rolling decks before in The Ship and the AC130 has been in Virtual Battlespace for years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7XXGFWh_M )
That's it.
All the rest is not outstanding. It is "the same".
Medal of Honour, Medal of Honour: Airborne,COD, COD2, COD4, the same.
What stands out about it's plot, theme or gameplay? What stands out about the graphics, sound or music? What stands out about it's multiplayer? Perhaps it's the AI?
Why does this game stand out from Crysis, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Half Life 2?
Why does it stand out from BattleField 2, Armed Assault and America's Army, Quake Wars?
Answer: it doesn't. It looks very poor indeed compared to them.
It'a good little game with high production values, but it's mediocre to play and nothing to write home about. It's theme is positively juvenile and essentially is right up the average Chuck Norris fan's street. I enjoy Steven Segal movies as much as the next man, of course, but obviously I wouldn't pay to see one.
An average game targetted at the teen market, with below average content and above average production values.
Ask yourself seriously GL, will you still be playing this game in one months time. Once you uninstall it, will you ever re-install it. When you friends come over will you marvel at it with them and play it all through again just so they can see?
Is it really "great" or just good.
I think the main reason why people are downloading illegal software is because the market price is ABSURD. Paying 60€ for a game is far from reasonable. If they lower to price, I think people will actually buy the game instead of downloading it. What do you guys think?
Call of Duty 4 did in fact have competition this year, Including Crysis (91%) The Orange Box (96%), which includes all episodes of Half Life 2, Bioshock (95%) and Halo 3 (93%) So it definitly wasn't short on competition. Gamespy isn't the only one who awarded Call of Duty 4 the game of the year award, it also won GOTY at the acadamy of interactive arts & sciences and has been nominated for many others.
I and many others find Call of Duty 4 vastly superior to Battlefield 2's Multiplayer. Battlefield may have a lot of players playing at one time, but I don't really see the appeal in that. The result is that the maps are a lot bigger, and if you happen to miss out on a vehicle at times...well, I hope you enjoy long tedious walks. What I like about Call of Duty 4's multiplayer the most is the level design. But I don't really play CoD4's multiplayer all that much. I like it, but I'm absolutely terrible at the game. A lot of the fights are over long distances, and my accuraccy is pretty bad. I'm better at, say, games like Halo or Unreal Tournament, which don't require pinpoint accuracy. and CoD4's rating is higher than Battlefield 2's anyway.
Call of Duty 4 isn't innovative, but a game doesn't have to be innovative to be good. Half Life 2 wasn't innovative either. Oh sure it had a gravity gun, and physics based puzzles (AKA time extenders to lengthen the experience). It had the same standard weapons, same standard combat, there was nothing special about it. And lets not even talk about the so called episodic content, in which valve couldn't even be bothered to add any new weapons. But that's okay, because innovation is not what makes those games great.
Edit; Actual numbers of downloaders:
kotaku.com/364440/pc-gamings-piracy-sales-charts
Who on earth are "the acadamy of interactive arts and sciences". Jimmy Briggs's blog also called COD4 GOTY. lol. Clutching at straws a bit with that one aren't we?
So if you don't enjoy long walks or the aiming system why does COD 4 stand out against Unreal 2007 or any of the other countless deathmatch titles? And if you do, why does it stand out against America's Army? Why does it stand out against GRAW2?
One minute ago you were saying COD4 didn't have a very big singler player, but it was the multiplayer that made it so fabulous and the next you are saying you didn't like the multiplayer enough to play it.
As far as I can tell you have spent 6 hours on the single player and you don't really get into the multiplayer. Which puts you on the same page as me.
I will not pay £35 for 6 hours gameplay. In my opinion anyone who does is a complete muppet. Let alone 6 hours of boring gameplay that I've done before 1,000 times already. And that is why this game isn't breaking any sales records.
I'm willing to make a bet. I bet you that you didn't buy COD4 for the PC either.
COD4 hasn't sold anything like as many copies as BF2. BF2 sold more in it's first month than COD 4 ever will. It's had more of your precious GOTY's and more of your GOTY nominations.
Half life 2, was innovative.
It introduced "the physics engine". It introduced new graphical special effects (refraction) and also made technological leaps with it's facial animations. It introduced two new gameplay elements to the genre. The physics puzzles and the "intermission break" vehicle rides. The gravity gun was nothing like "the same weapons" as had come before. What nonsense.
Halflife 2 was innovative in a number of area's. Including, theme, AI, artwork and gameplay. Three years after launch Halflife 2 is still on sale on the top shelves of shops as part of the Orange Box collection. I notice COD or COD 2 aren't on sale anywhere. COD 4 won't be either. I wonder why.
Btw, "Halo 3" hasn't been released. How exactly has Halo 3 been competition for COD4?
Your basic problem, is you that you only know about console games and not PC games.
You think console games make good PC games, but they don't. And when we are discussing PC games, you are not, you are discussing your console game that happens to be available on PC too.
COD4 may very well be an excellent console title that you are enjoying, and it may indeed compare well to the other console titles of Bioshock, the Orange Box and Halo 3, but this has absolutely no effect on PC game piracy.
Your experience of PC game titles is almost exclusively based upon games that you have played on the Xbox.
Comeback when you have a clue.
P.S. you wouldn't have trouble with accurate aiming systems if you played FPS on a PC.
Console games don't sell well on PC. It's not because of piracy, it's not because PC's aren't powerful enough to run them. It's because they are console games.
PC gamers avoid any cross platform title on principle.
COD4 is a great console game. But it's also a mediocre PC game. The audience has different expectations.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
I stand corrected, 2 years.
The point however remains the same. 2 years is still a very short development time. Just what investors like.
I've met 18 year olds at Ubi and 18 year olds at Sony and 18 year olds at Acclaim.
What's graduating got to do anything? Most artists don't attend "Dev school", they learn how to do it at home on their PC's "making mods" and then send off their portfolio's. I don't know of any artists with any "grades".
And no doing the job is not TERRIBLY DIFFICULT. A texture artist is a texture artist. You don't have to be at the top of any game. You are a cog in the machine, all you have to do is chug out textures from 9 till 5 and then go home.
All a model skinner has to do is draw the uniforms. Uniform after uniform from 9 till 5.
Fansites are simply rammed full of level designers, model makers skinners and scripted all desperate for the chance to get into the industry.
While there are obviously jobs more difficult than others, it's essentially factory work. The artists are on a production line.
Computer engineering, the C++ coders etc, those are the clever guys. They might have grades and degree's. They earn more than the artists, but the bulk of the team is made up of artists. Artists are two a penny lowest form of life other than a tester. If a game is essentially a mod, like Gears of War or COD only Artists are really needed. There isn't going to be much call for any "computer engineering".
COD 4's engine is not built from scratch. It is a customised version of the ID Tech 3 engine. You may wish to believe it is, the sales and marketing team may wish you to believe it is, but it isn't.
A better analogy would be, they put in their own sofa's and couch to ID's existing house. It does more the same than it does different. It's more or less identical but the new one can handle more polygons. (IE the framerate cap has been removed because hardware limitiations are no longer what they used to be when Quake 3 came out). I don;t think either COD 1 or COD 2 have had much customisation to the engine at all.
What differences have you seen? How do you think it has changed?
Who on earth are "the acadamy of interactive arts and sciences". Jimmy Briggs's blog also called COD4 GOTY. lol. Clutching at straws a bit with that one aren't we?
So if you don't enjoy long walks or the aiming system why does COD 4 stand out against Unreal 2007 or any of the other countless deathmatch titles? And if you do, why does it stand out against America's Army? Why does it stand out against GRAW2?
One minute ago you were saying COD4 didn't have a very big singler player, but it was the multiplayer that made it so fabulous and the next you are saying you didn't like the multiplayer enough to play it.
As far as I can tell you have spent 6 hours on the single player and you don't really get into the multiplayer. Which puts you on the same page as me.
I will not pay £35 for 6 hours gameplay. In my opinion anyone who does is a complete muppet. Let alone 6 hours of boring gameplay that I've done before 1,000 times already. And that is why this game isn't breaking any sales records.
I'm willing to make a bet. I bet you that you didn't buy COD4 for the PC either.
COD4 hasn't sold anything like as many copies as BF2. BF2 sold more in it's first month than COD 4 ever will. It's had more of your precious GOTY's and more of your GOTY nominations.
Half life 2, was innovative.
It introduced "the physics engine". It introduced new graphical special effects (refraction) and also made technological leaps with it's facial animations. It introduced two new gameplay elements to the genre. The physics puzzles and the "intermission break" vehicle rides. The gravity gun was nothing like "the same weapons" as had come before. What nonsense.
Halflife 2 was innovative in a number of area's. Including, theme, AI, artwork and gameplay. Three years after launch Halflife 2 is still on sale on the top shelves of shops as part of the Orange Box collection. I notice COD or COD 2 aren't on sale anywhere. COD 4 won't be either. I wonder why.
Btw, "Halo 3" hasn't been released. How exactly has Halo 3 been competition for COD4?
Your basic problem, is you that you only know about console games and not PC games.
You think console games make good PC games, but they don't. And when we are discussing PC games, you are not, you are discussing your console game that happens to be available on PC too.
COD4 may very well be an excellent console title that you are enjoying, and it may indeed compare well to the other console titles of Bioshock, the Orange Box and Halo 3, but this has absolutely no effect on PC game piracy.
Your experience of PC game titles is almost exclusively based upon games that you have played on the Xbox.
Comeback when you have a clue.
P.S. you wouldn't have trouble with accurate aiming systems if you played FPS on a PC.
Console games don't sell well on PC. It's not because of piracy, it's not because PC's aren't powerful enough to run them. It's because they are console games.
PC gamers avoid any cross platform title on principle.
COD4 is a great console game. But it's also a mediocre PC game. The audience has different expectations.
Your attempts to claim Half Life 2 as innovative are laughable, to say the least. Graphics have absolutely nothing to do with gameplay. and hell, even the first Halo had vehicle sections. The Gravity gun? Please, it's one weapon that isn't needed in the first place besides to solve puzzles, this is what we call a gimmick. You know. CoD4 hasn't sold as much as Battlefield 2 because Call of Duty 4 is simply downloaded, it's that simple.
About the Multiplayer, I had a good time for a while, But as I said I stopped playing because I'm not very good at it, not because I'm not impressed by it.
About Halo 3, Halo 3 was not released on the PC but it was released in the same year, and thus competed with CoD4 for GOTY awards.
Call of Duty 4 is a first person shooter, its right up the PC gamers alley. Call of Duty 4 isn't a console game. Just because it's avaible on consoles doesn't make it a console game, Infinity Ward has NEVER developed a console only game.
The problem here is this baff: You simply don't know what you're talking about. Call of Duty 4 has received an average score (PC version, Not Xbox or PS version) of 93%. It IS a good game, it's that simple. Its focus is on multiplayer and its famous for that. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it's a bad game. Did it ever occur to you that the game just might not be for you?
You can claim "It's a poor game, because look! this game of 3 years ago sold better!", but meanwhile reviewers are proving you wrong over and over again. In fact, why don't you send a letter to PC gamer, saying that their review score of 93% is totally off.
Heck, even Zero Punctuation couldn't bring himself to rip CoD4 apart, and even he was impressed:
www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2901-Zero-Punctuation-Call-of-Duty-4
According to this article that I posted before, Call of Duty 4 is actually downloaded more often than the Orange box:
kotaku.com/364440/pc-gamings-piracy-sales-charts
"Different expectations" don't make me laugh, PC gamers love Call of Duty 4. Xfire is by no means 100% accurate, but it does give a good indiciation:
www.xfire.com/
What does the list say? mm, Number 1: WoW, Number 2: CoD4 and..what is that on number 3? ah yes, Call of Duty 2. but hey, Battlefield 2 is on number 4, with not even half of CoD2's numbers.
Whatever mate.
You're not playing it either
Your review likes it, but you got bored of it.
You can quote everyone elses opinion, but you can't face the reality of your own.
What does Xire show me? That WoW has a better friendslist function than COD4?
That it's a newer game than BF2? Where is COD2 on Xfire? that's the same age (or younger). Where do you think COD 4 will be on Xfire in two years time? Why is Battlefield 2 stil int he sales charts and COD 2 nowhere to be seen?
COD 4 isn't right up PC gamers alley. It's right up console gamers alley. It's being outsold on console at 10-1 to PC. You like console games, and surprise surprise you think COD4 is the bee's knee's. I don't and surprise surprise, I'm not impressed by it.
I too would be willing to download COD 4 for free, I just wouldn't be willing to pay for it. Unlike console owners who all think it's well worth the money by the millions. And why not? What's the competiton in consoleland....Gears of War? Halo. Lmao. You're right COD4 is an excellent game if we are going to put it like that!
The question here is not whether the game is worth downloading for free, and how many people believe it to be worth downloading for free, it is how many people are willing to pay for it.
And this is $100 question, or rather this is the $50 question, a question to which about half a million PC gamers are going to say yes to. Same as last time. And another half miilion will say yes when the price goes down.
When Battlefield asked the same question of course, substantially more people replied yes.
Ask yourself for a minute why the best selling game ever isn't even on your list of piracy hits. Ask yourself why Battlefield and Quake Wars aren't there either.
Ask yourself why Football Manager 2007, an emminently pirateable game isn't on that list despite outselling COD4.
Why didn't COD4 sell 8 million copies on PC already, when it did on console? and when PC games are the top sellers in the market place.
Because it's a console game. Because it is a mediocre PC title. Because it is nothing new. Because it is not great value. Because there are too many better games on the market. Because it doesn't have an intresting theme. Because PC gamers aren't that intrested in it.
It's a no brainer pick up and play shooter. It has the kind of multiplayer that excites console players and leaves PC players feeling ripped off. It has no depth or replayability. No amount of content, no inspired theme or elements of simulation.
This is a kiddy game. The kind of thing I would buy a teenager. Sure, you can sell it for a profit to the PC market, but you will get more for it on consoles.
It's not that I don't like it, I do like it. But I would never buy it.
I already explained why I don't play it, it's not because I think it's a bad game.
I already pointed out where CoD2 is, its on number 3, right below Call of Duty 4 and 2 spots above Battlefield 2.
I like console games and PC games and surprise, I like Call of Duty 4. There are thousands of PC gamers who enjoy PC games and surprise, they like Call of Duty 4 as well. It's funny that you somehow appointed yourself as a representation of every PC gamer out there.
I can't really comment on Battlefield 2 or Quake Wars because I don't know if pirated versions of those games can be played online, probably not. (call of Duty 4 apparently can be played online if downloaded), and aside from that, Battlefield 2 is a very old game, and not every old game is still being downloaded today.
Fottball managed 2007 outsold CoD4? We don't know, Infinity Ward never released actual PC sale numbers as far as I'm aware.
Ofcourse Console Call of Duty 4 outsells the PC version, that's where we get back to the main arguement: Piracy.
I can't face the reality? You want to know the reality? The reality is a 93% score (www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/939217.asp )and game of the year award, that's the reality.
It's not a bad game it's just not good enough for you to play. Righto.
Actions speak louder than words.
I represent this PC gamer. But I'm by no means alone as the only PC game who doesn't buy console ports.
Why do you think they made a seperate PC game version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter?
Another modern war shooter? Because their market research told them that PC gamers won't buy a cross plaform game in the kind of numbers they are looking to sell.
They had tried it with Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas and failed to make an impact on the PC audience. (Despite Rainbow Six being my favourite XBox 360 game, I wouldn't touch it on my PC, it blows).
PC elitism isn't a new concept to you GL, I'm not the first person you have heard it from.
Call of Duty has always been better received on console. COD2 broke Xbox 360 sales records. 1.4 of the 2 million copies sold where on the Xbox 360. The rest having been split between Xbox and PC.
Football manager outsold COD. Football manager outsold everything. We do know. You provided the links to NPD and ESA's figures for 2007.
We also know that COD 4 sold 383,000 copies on PC by Christmas. Do you think COD and COD2 also sold this many by Christmas? or do you think they had sold 8 milliion copies too.
The COD4 is set to sell more copies of it's PC version than COD 2 did. If it hasn't already.
Piracy or no piracy, it's selling better on PC than it did last time round.
Whinney developers mate. They are all the same, they see piracy and they start bleating how it is ruining their business and stealing all their money. And yet, year on year they sell more each time.
They made a seperate version because it's a franchise thar primarily exists on the PC. It's different because it was supposed to appeal to fans of the franchise, where something new was attempted on the consoles since it was like a new franchise to console gamers anyway.
PC elitismt isn't a new concept to me, however it increased significantly when developers started to favor consoles over PC.
What I find quite funny is just how predictable PC elitism is. Whenever a developer complains about piracy or when a game doesn't meet expected sales you can bet your right arm that PC elitist will blame it on the quality of the game, and that PC gamers have "Higher standards then console gamers". because the term "under the radar" and "underrated" doesn't exist in the official PC elitist dictionary 2nd edition, and sure, 80% of the people may pirate a game, but that's no excuse for bad sales, oh no it isn't, that's impossible.
While I'm more then willing to believe football manager outsold all in Europe...in the US? I doubt it. They sell more each year? Well Infinity Ward developer didn't complain about not selling enough on PC, they never did, they complained about how large amount of people playing the game online pirated the game.
You are back peddling. Infinity Ward wrote...
""It blows me away at the amount of people willing to steal games (or anything) simply because it's not physical or it's on the safety of the internet to do."
The post was headlined: They wonder why people don't make PC games any more
Guess what? The next game they make will be available on PC too. Money talks.
Ghost Recon was PC title.
Ghost Recon 2 an Xbox title.
COD is also a franchise title that started off as a PC title. It is also an FPS. A tactical shooter and inthe case of COD 4, a modern combat game available on multiple platforms.
They have the same target markets.
The thing you don't realise is I've been listening to developers blame piracy for lack of sales since before PC's ever existed. Since before consoles. For you this whole topic is just part of your Console pwns PC tirade. The rest of us are primarily discussing the effects of piracy.
I'm not telling you that piracy isn't killing the PC games industry because I want to encourage more developers to make games for the PC. (Although I do). I'm telling you this because the sales figures don't back up the argument and that in the entire 25 years I've been listening to this same old story, they never have.
No matter how plausable the reasons for why piracy is killing the software industry, and PC games in particular sound, each one is confounded by the increase in sales of PC games, year upon year.
Football manager outsold everything. Everywhere.
It had the most sales of any game world wide. So if you add up COD in both Europe and the U.S., Football Manager wins.
FYI 60% of all PC games are sold in Europe. American sales haven't been centre stage for PC game developers for almost 5 years now. European PC gamers like me are less intrested in U.S. sales.
You can't compare piracy of older years with piracy today. Nowadays nearly everyone has access to high speed internet and bittorrent. Game development obviously has become much more expensive and piracy is now much more accessible. Consoles and PC used to be two complete different things, with two different audiences but that's simply no longer the case. A large part of the console audience enjoys the same games PC gamers do.
For instance, you seem to be very fond of Half Life 2 and the Orange Box, and you seem to use it as an example for innovation. If the audiences are so different, then how come The Orange Box sold 1.5 million copies on consoles? Console gamers and PC gamers when, talking in terms of FPS, like the same things...only difference is that console gamers actually buy the game as opposed to downloading it.
Also, Call of Duty 4 is the best selling game of 2007, not Football manager.
I can think of a few reasons why Ubisoft made two version. This way they can try out new stuff and stay loyal at the same time. Trying something new with a franchise is always a tricky thing. Infinity Ward simply played it differently and went to see and look if the games did well on both platforms.
Also I'm not back peddling at all, Infinity Ward doesn't complain about the sales in there so we don't know the sales numbers on PC. They complain about the huge amount of piracy.
Also, According to Moore, PC game sales have actually declined.
www.youtube.com/watch
However what has increased is, i'm sure this won't come as a surprise, MMORPG subscribtion, which is clearly the way the industry is headed.
isn't COD that one vanilla WWII shooter series. even though they've done something different this time they'll always be remembered as that.
if I want to play vanilla shoooter I'll play america's army since it's free, and legaly so.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
I can compare piracy of older years to todays I just did.
You found an article putting todays piracy at a level of 80%, I found one putting 1995's at 78%.
Consoles and PC's are still two completely different audiences. There are however people who still own and enjoy both and always have been.
I can believe console gamers will buy Halflife 2.
But PC gamers still won't buy Halo.
Because what is innovative on the console, was innovative on the PC 3 years ago. It isn't a static market and the pecking order doesn't work in reverse. Gears of War is not about to sell 2 million copies on the PC.
Half life 2 was a best selling PC, it broke all previous sales records. Pc games bought it in it's millions. They are still buying it, 3 years on.
You might notice exactly how many games do break all previous sales records. The market is still growing, it happens 3 times a year.
Infinity Ward complained about piracy in a thread titled no wonder people won't make PC games. You understood that when you started this thread, now you are back peddling becuase it turns out their PC sales were actually excellent, their best yet, profitable in their own right and now the dev's just look stupid.
You can think of as many reasons as you like why Ubisoft made two versions. I will tell you the actual reason. Because their market research told them to.
They went the console route and it lost them their share of the PC game market for the Tom Clancy franchise. They wanted to get it back.
They asked the PC gamers what they wanted in the next Ghost Recon Title and all the PC gamers to a man said, "no more console ports". All the reviews of their console ports said "crappy console port". When they checked their sales figures, they found that the console ports hadn't sold.
That's it. Thats the reason. No need for you to think. No need for me to address this with you further. Look it up for yourself if you like. No need for you to make idle conjecture.
Trying something new has nothing to do with anything. They made a franchise title. The object is not to try something new but to make more of the same.
MMORPG subscritption was widely heralded as the savoiur of PC gaming about 2-3 years ago. Is that an old interview or something?
At which point all the publishers, excited by the runaway and highly profitable success of WoW all embarked upon making their own titles.
3 years on, it's to pay back the investors time and as we have seen with Microsoft dropping Marvel and Vanguard, that little investment bubble is over. MMOROG's are a saturated market with the current dominant product (WoW) so far in advance of the competition that new titles that can steal it's customers away are pretty unlikely. Publishers are dropping all those mmorpg's.
But someting along the lines of a requires login and authentication service is clearly the way forward if piracy is your prime concern. Hence the Battlefield and Quake Wars games, and the multiplayer elements of COD have all been pretty much unaffected by piracy.
COD 4 is not the best selling game of 2007. It's not even in the right league. to give you some idea, Wii Sports sold 17 million copies.
Speaking as someone who plays both console and PC games, the PC gamer in me does indeed have higher expectations of a game made for PC, and rightly so.
When I play a console game, I respect the fact that the graphics may come up short compared to PC, that the AI may come up short to PC, that the length of gameplay may come up short to PC, etc.
This is because consoles are limited hardware wise in what a game made for a console can achieve.
On the PC front, my computer can smoke the best console graphics wise, has better processing power for better and varied AI than any console processor can maintain, has phenomenally more memory and storage capacity than any console which allows for more assets, content, and gameplay length than a console.
Therefore, when a game is made for PC it is expected to have more in terms of everything compared to if it were made for a console.
Baff I'm really tired of your stupid arguments.. You say COD4 made profit with their PC sales alone.. Sure.. Thats because the price is split between three platforms...
I can almost PROMISE you that if it was an ONLY PC title.. then they would not have made a profit.
Piracy and lack of sustainable sales on PC is the REASON why so many developers HAVE to put games on Console
C&C3, Oblivion, Monkey Island, Crysis, FarCry, HALF LIFE, Rainbow Six, FEAR, GRAW.... PC developers HATE consoles..
Valve among other companies complained for days and days about 360 development, Then they complained for days and days about PS3 development... But they HAVE to put their games on these consoles WHY? Because game development costs have sky rocketted... pretty much all mainstream games are now in the range of 10-20 million dollars. When you sell horribly like Crysis did (they sold 1m to retailers not to consumers)... And have a couple hundred thousand pirated copies. The PC business is just NOT sustainable without putting games on Consoles..
And guess what.. .Soon enough.. because of people like you who continue to deny the existance of any problems in the PC industry... people either outright leave.. OR they bastardize the game and make it simple for the console players.. which is exactly what happened with Rainbow Six, which is exactly what happened with GRAW (which sold like crap on PC btw), which is exactly what happened with the elder scrolls, which is what's about to happen with Sim City, which is what happened with COD4, which is what is going to happen with Battlefield Bad Company, Which is what happened with BioShock, Which is happened to Far Cry ala Instincts, Which is what's going to happen with the next total Annhialation/ Supreme Commander...etc etc etc...
Yes Baff.. its because of people like you who pretend there is no problem...
Please tell me about how bad a game Crysis is or how easy it was to create.. or how its running an outdated engine.. which would justify your pirating.. and explain its horrible sales..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Cryssis is selling quite nicely. It's in the top ten on all sales charts and has been since launch. I fully expect it to still be there in a years time.
Your problem is, you've got so used to hearing games break the world sales record on their first day, that if they don't, you think something has gone wildly wrong.
I think Cryssis will be a slow burner due to the hardware specs. Not everybody has the big hardware to run it, but all the people who buy the new hardware will then go and buy it. I expect it to make most of it's sales in the OEM market packaged with GFX cards and Soundcards etc just as Unreal and Doom3 did.
You know, the same way you said Windows sells so many.
Cod 4 has sold 1/3-1/2 a million copies on PC. That alone pays for the whole development and then some.
Not only has it paid for the entire development on all platforms it has also earnt the owner of Infinity Ward a new Ferrari and a new mansion from just those royalties. If you do the maths before getting smart with your mouth you won't get so annoyed so fast.
What happened with Rainbow Six is that the core programmers (the smart ones) all retired when they sold their company to the publisher. The game was then made by the art deptartment (Ubi Montreal) as a series of mods only. Because they were unable to update their game engine, to stay cutting edge, they took a sideways step and used the existing Ghost Recon engine to make Ghost Recon 2 on the XBox. (free money!).
Unable to to make a new and advanced PC engine they then abandoned the project and went on to make a Rainbow Six mod on the Unreal engine, RavenShield. It sold quite well, although not half as well as Ghost Recon, and they released it on console also. Where it sold well also.
They went on to make the next two versions using their propietry engine for one and the unreal engine again for the other, but by this time all the original programmer were gone. (The project leader had been a beta tester on the original games). R6 Lockdown was a complete flop and R6 Vegas only sold on the XBOX 360. R6 Lockdown was panned for having an out of date game engine and R6 Vegas (and Lockdown) was panned for being a console port with no PC support.
This is classic franchise stuff. When you sell your company, you leave at the same time. It get's brain drained. Expect the same sort of thing to come with the Battlefield franchise now that Dice have sold it to EA.
Ubi did some soul searching for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. It had learnt that PC community had lost trust with the Tom Clancy Franchise and stopped buying the titles. So responding to the demand it made a completely seperate and simultaneous game development for GRAW PC. By doing this and releasing both GRAW's at the same time the company could share the cost of advertising and certain elements of the development (Voice acting, box art etc), between the titles.
As it happened the PC version, despite embracing some of the the lastest graphical technology (Ageia) was not well recieved. It's basic problem is it was made on the same timescale as the console version, meaning in order to keep it's cost sharing it had to be made and released in under 2 years also.
PC games are bigger than console games. And more complicated. While the console Version was a mod of an existing and well used game engine, the PC version was hand made from a racing car engine. The game released buggy and the develeopment company never managed to hire a decent netcoder, making the multiplayer very unreliable. (Netcoders are like gold dust).
The console version was a big hit, and the PC version sold enough to warrant a sequal too. But the new dev team for the PC version never managed to live up to the high standards of the original, and I suspect we won't be seeing any more from them on this title.
I'm not pretending to you that piracy is not a problem or that it does not damage sales. I'm just pointing out that lost sales aren't what is important. Sales made are.
It doesn't matter how many millions of copies are pirated as long as the company sells enough to make a profit, more games will be made. COD has made a massive profit. Even excluding all the console copies sold it has made a massive profit.
There isn't a problem. It's a very profitable and expanding business. As it grows piracy grows with it. All known dev's always get really wound up by it, but they still get paid well. They still make more games. Ultimately the sales figures don't support that it is the big threat to the industry publishers and developers would have you believe.
Before you start wildly attributing an slack off in PC sales to everything under the sun you can imagine. Piracy, the uberness of console Hardware etc. try and remember that we predicted the slow down of PC titles for the year period around the next gen console launches. We aren't expecting PC games to be selling as strongly as usual with all this new and exciting competition in the market. This isn't the first time it has happened. Mass piracy isn't new either. Nothing to see here. just business as usual.
How many people pirate WoW?
I know not every game is a MMO. But they could just sell an activation code.
If game companies can figure out how many sales are lost due to pirating, why can't they figure out how many sales are lost due to their game sucking?