dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


onebadmofo
gat gnitsoP
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Reading, PA
kudos:1
reply to me1212

Re: Ubisoft employee admits to downgrading Division.

I'm strictly a console player. I'm on the computer too much at work to be able to seriously game on it at home as well.

But this is just stupid. Dumb down a PC game so that the console versions don't look as bad? Huh??? That's how it's always been! It's always been that the PC version was years ahead of the console version. Heck, for console gamers it was always a glimpse into the future making us think, "wow...maybe one day consoles will look as good as that."

Ooor this is a way for them to sell TWO copies to PC gamers. They bring the dumbed down version out first and those who can't wait to play it will buy it. And then sell it again, as a true revamp with graphics that make you want to finger your butthole. Those who already bought it will buy it again. It's a TRUE American way of doing business. It's basically how Microsoft makes it's profits, so why not follow their successful rip off tactics, and do it with games as well.
--
Insert thoughtful/witty/meaningful/poetic/funny/deep/rude/stupid/random/comment here.
Be unique...ya know, like everyone else.


bionicRod
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2
I think it's more along the lines of not wanting to lose console sales to the PC and fragment a concentrated market. Developing for consoles has got to be cheaper and easier due to having the exact same specs on every machine compared to custom PC builds and differing hardware. I mean if the difference between game versions is HUGE, and it can be (check out Witcher 2 in 1600p with all the eye candy turned on if you ever get a chance) people will start thinking that with just a couple hundred bucks more than their console they could have a decent gaming PC that would look and play tons better. And now with Steamboxes and wireless hdmi gaming on PC is no longer relegated to a monitor and computer desk.
--
The world was movin' she was right there with it and she was


Adalicia
Om Nom Nom

join:2009-10-13
Lincoln, NE
kudos:13
said by bionicRod:

Developing for consoles has got to be cheaper and easier due to having the exact same specs on every machine compared to custom PC builds and differing hardware.

God of War III: ~44 Million
Gran Turismo 5: ~60 Million
Homefront: ~50 Million
Watch_Dogs: ~68 Million
Destiny: ~140 Million
COD: MW2: ~200 Million

Crysis: ~20.4 Million
The Witcher: ~6.5 Million
The Witcher II: ~8.2 Million
RIFT: ~70 Million
SW:TOR: ~200 Million

As you can see, it makes little difference. Some games have massive bloated budgets and development costs and some don't. Some are good. Some aren't. Some have back end costs (MMO's for example) and others don't.
--
Lore Nerd. Role Player. Slightly Annoying. Also Likes Kittens.


ekster
Hi there
Premium
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine
How much of those budgets is 'advertising' though?

Witcher barely had any. It kind of came out of nowhere with Witcher 1 and needed no advertising for Witcher 2. The game actually sold itself.

COD, SW:TOR, Watch Dogs, Destiny, etc. were/are complete advertising hoes, however. They can't step out of their building without making a new ad.


bionicRod
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2
reply to Adalicia
said by Adalicia:

As you can see, it makes little difference.

Are those the entire budgets of those games or just the development budgets? I'm guessing a lot of those big numbers are spent on other things than straight up development, such as licensing, advertising, promotions and such. I'm talking about simplicity from a strictly development standpoint, which you would think would equal cost savings. But I'm just thinking out loud.
--
The world was movin' she was right there with it and she was


Adalicia
Om Nom Nom

join:2009-10-13
Lincoln, NE
kudos:13

2 edits
reply to ekster
The Witcher had a marketing budget of ~$650,000 so about 10% of the total development costs. The marketing budget on the Witcher II was roughly 20% of the development costs, so roughly around ~$1.6 Million. So, to get nitty gritty, assuming the information is correct, the actual development costs of the Witcher was ~$5.9 Million and the Witcher II was roughly ~$6.6 Million. EDIT: BAD WITH MATH.

Concerning some of the other questsions, the information Google gives me is as follows:

Destiny: ~$140 million - The leaked initial development contract for the game authorized payments totaling up to $140 million to cover Bungie's development and limited marketing efforts (ViDocs and other marketing assets) prior to the game's beta. As the contract also specifies, Bungie's marketing costs - limited to $1 million - are separate from Activision's own marketing expenses on Destiny.

Rift: $60-70 million - In an interview with Developer, former Trion Worlds CEO Lars Buttler said the development budget on Trion's first game was more than $50 million. And an Effie Awards document pegged the cost of the game's marketing campaign as being between $10 million to $20 million.

Homefront: $50 million - THQ's attempt to take on Call of Duty had a $50 million development budget, according to former Kaos Studios producer Dex Smither.
--
Lore Nerd. Role Player. Slightly Annoying. Also Likes Kittens.


bionicRod
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2
If it is not driven by development costs I am hard pressed for the motivation for game publishers to try and make consoles appear more on par with PC. I get that they sell a majority of multiplats on consoles, but if development costs aren't an issue you wouldn't think they'd care if every console player switched to PC as long as they still bought some version of the game. Unless MS and Sony are somehow making it worth their while...



--
The world was movin' she was right there with it and she was


ekster
Hi there
Premium
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine
There are definitely bonuses from Sony and MS for being exclusive, or even releasing on their console earlier that the competitor's.

It's been happening several times on kickstarter lately, where a release for one console would be delayed by a month or two because the other console owner agreed to pretty much double their budget for it. (While it's not huge amounts, but an extra 20k-100k is a big difference to an indie group.)


Adalicia
Om Nom Nom

join:2009-10-13
Lincoln, NE
kudos:13
My personal take on it is thus:

Generally speaking there are more console "gamers" than there are PC gamers. Using something like League of Legend as an example (which can be played on something as terrible as a Nokia N-Gage) it is easy to say there are a massive amount of PC gamers. But, when talking about "real" games (from the standard lip service bullshit) like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Tomb Raider, etc, they almost always sell significantly better on the consoles than they do on the PC.

So, just going off last generation numbers, 83 Million Xbox 360s and 80 Million PS3s, result in a large install base than the last numbers I've seen from Steam, which I believe was 65 Million world wide.

It is beneficial for the console manufacturers to have games on their platforms first and foremost. Games can sell systems, and games have licencing fees as well (usually about 15-20% of the base cost of a game is the fee, hence the reason console games usually cost $10 or more between PC and Console. Therefore, it makes sense for both Microsoft and Sony to have "the best" thing out there. Sells units and sells games. They sell these systems (at launch) at a loss (how I don't know) so earning more money via games and their online platforms is always a good thing.

Therefore it isn't a surprising that they would in turn put pressure on publishers and developers to ensure that their shit boxes continue to sell, and games along with them.
--
Lore Nerd. Role Player. Slightly Annoying. Also Likes Kittens.


bionicRod
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2
said by Adalicia:

Therefore it isn't a surprising that they would in turn put pressure on publishers and developers to ensure that their shit boxes continue to sell, and games along with them.

Makes sense. MS has said over and over again that XBox is its gaming brand. They want people to buy console games because they want to sell consoles, simple as that. I just wonder how they are doing it. If someone could prove that the console manufacturers are paying off (or otherwise compensating) publishers to purposefully downgrade PC ports of games that would be huge. And people would still buy the next Ubisoft game. Because that's how gamers roll.

Honestly I was really looking forward to The Division. This has kind of dampened that enthusiasm. I'd rather a company go Bungie's route with Destiny and not do a PC port at all than all this dishonest bullshit like Watch Dogs and the Division. Of course as has been pointed out Ubisoft has never been the most PC gamer-friendly company anyway.
--
The world was movin' she was right there with it and she was

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

1 edit
reply to bionicRod
I know ubisoft technically sells more on consoles, but thats only when combined, the single platform they sold most games on last year was the pc. Not to mention they make more from pc sales than console sales. MS or Sony has to be paying them off at this point.

EDIT: I have to wonder why people list the consoles together when talking about this stuff so much. They are different platforms, a different version/port of a game has to be made for each of them, just like pc. A sale on a ps4 is different than a sale on the xb1 is different than a sale on the pc.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
I don't remember which thread, but there was a discussion on one of the gaming PC subreddits with an anon game developer, who pointed out that most distributors have agreements in place that their game won't look substantially better or worse on a competing console (this is focused on Xbox One/PS4). This clearly favors Microsoft since the PS4 has a slight edge, but PC may have fallen victim to both MS and Sony ganging up on PC as a mutual threat (enemy of my enemy).

When someone asked for proof of these agreements, the dev said any proof would link back to NDAs and dev portals. Take it FWIW.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
I don't understand why they would do that unless ms and sony are paying them off. Heck even bethesda put out an official HD texture pack and while its no where near as good as the 2k one it is hands down better than the consoles. Oh well at least we get better resolutions and frame rate, and sweet fx and the like to help.

I know I wont be buying form ubisoft for a long time though, I'd sooner buy from ea(and did get titanfall a couple weeks ago) than ubisoft now. That saying something too.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
said by me1212:

I don't understand why they would do that unless ms and sony are paying them off.

"You want to generate revenue on our system? You play by our rules." Lost sales are enough motivation for the distributor to bow to these requirements. AFAIK they are more likely to be paid off by making the game exclusive to that platform. MS or Sony pay a premium to make up for the lost sales (e.g. Titanfall) and then use the game as marketing as a platform exclusive.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.