Edit: Okay, PC gamers, I hate to show this to you, but check this (
http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/The_Force_Unleased_Not_Coming_To_PC_110986.asp). I guess the question is answered then: No TFU for PC. :(
That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later, though does it?
It would be nice if they would say why they're not going to release a PC version....
Also, there is one instance (
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/bioshock/news.html?page=1&sid=6168396&cpage=1) where a petition actually brought results.
That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later, though does it? I don't recall LucasArts ever going back and releasing a game on a platform for which they originally decided not to release it for. Thus I recommend you don't hold your breath for SW: TFU to be released for PC. :(
It would be nice if they would say why they're not going to release a PC version..The following is reposted from post #55 in this thread.
While The Force Unleashed will be coming to higher-end consoles like the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, there will be no Wii or PC versions for the time being. "At this time, we are not planning a PC release," said Blackman. He said that current PC hardware constraints would prevent the game from reaching a broad audience and added, "The minimum spec for a PC version right now is just too high."Source: TGDaily (
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32228/98/)
IMHO a rather lame excuse from SW:TFU's project lead when one considers the fact that the game is being released on Nintendo Wii, Playstation 2, Nintendo DS and N-Gage. The reasoning would hold more water with me if they were only going to release the game for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. But of course that isn't the case and you didn't ask for a good reason... :smirk2:
Well, I understand the problem. But, like you said, Char Ell, I don't know *why* there would be this problem... Seems to me they could release it for PC if they really wanted to, considering some other PC titles that are quite the strain on mine....
Of course, they could always *cough* release it on a, er, mac.
A mystery to me too why they decided against a PC version.
Also, there is one instance (
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/bioshock/news.html?page=1&sid=6168396&cpage=1) where a petition actually brought results.
I think they already wanted a limited edition, the people persuaded them to actually do one.
Petitions did not bring back Sam And Max 2 nor Full Throttle 2.
Well, the thread's back up, time to respond:
Shadow Talon wrote:
So you are saying owners of a next gen consoles will have trash just to make them buy a PC so they can enjoy completely TFU on it (if they release one for PC)?
That is evil.
Nope. Just saying that, if the game can do it's thing on a 360 and a PS2, why not an a PC?
I haven't bothered researching the actual console total unit sales figures but if there are 110 million PS2's out there then those are 110 million reasons why LucasArts should support the PS2. IIRC the PS2 was the clear winner in the previous generation of consoles with by far the largest installed base.
Yes, okay. But don't you think it's a slap in the face of all PC owners? The people with an 'medium' PC see the PS2 can play the game and feel betrayed. People with an High-end PC who see the game is released for the 360 and PS3 will have the same feeling. And that's my whole point :)
Petitions did not bring back Sam And Max 2 nor Full Throttle 2.Because they can reach 85+% of their target audience by developing it solely for consoles, without the very alrge headache of trying to support many PC configurations. It doesn't make much business sense to put in so much effort for such a small profit gain...
Yes, okay. But don't you think it's a slap in the face of all PC owners? The people with an 'medium' PC see the PS2 can play the game and feel betrayed. People with an High-end PC who see the game is released for the 360 and PS3 will have the same feeling. And that's my whole point :) :lol:
1) I didn't realize you were responding to me
2) I wrote that 4 months before you posted a response. What took you so long? ;)
Sure, I think PC gamers have gotten the short end of the stick with LucasArts' decision to develop TFU for almost every platform under the sun but PC. I believe I've already expressed in this thread that I'm very disappointed in their decision. What can I do about it though? Not much. I've considered sending a postal letter to LucasArts to express my displeasure but I really don't think it will do anything. This is just a matter of LucasArts going with what they believe are the most profitable options available. With Jim Ward at the helm, LucasArts believes that consoles and handhelds are the way forward and I can't really argue with that decision based on the sales numbers I've seen. So I expect they won't release much in the way of PC games for at least the next couple of years, excepting any new SW MMORPG they may release. But since I'm a PC gamer and don't see much point in buying a console after investing some serious money in my PC then I think the most effective course of action I can take is to continue to buy PC games that interest me from publishers that support the PC platform. If LucasArts isn't among those publishers then unfortunately that is just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. :giveup:
Actually I would see them releasing a pc port like they do with those Lego games. Ports that does not really utilize the strengths of the PC but merely a simple "move that xbox game to PC" approach to squeeze more money out of the project with minimal effort. Probably would only happen once the consoles are out for a while though, like half a year or so. Lets just hope that they do a xbox port and not pull an "emulator of ps2" approach, and as we know it they are releasing the game on ps2 despite saying the game being "next gen only" and anyone who thinks ps2 is still "next gen" nowadays should have his balls violently ripped off with a spoon and force fed back with tabasco and a hit of poprock powder.
Remember, many many so-called game reprints are just old console games emulated from older console rather than real ports. Lets hop this does not happen here for TFU.
I mean, it would be much easier and cheaper to do that with minimal extra budget and what not... much cheaper than the money they have wasted on the toaster wannabe known as ps3, where many game publishers start to shy away.
Because they can reach 85+% of their target audience by developing it solely for consoles, without the very alrge headache of trying to support many PC configurations. It doesn't make much business sense to put in so much effort for such a small profit gain...
You almost sound like one of those 'PC Gaming is dead!' preachers, pulling those numbers from your behind (yes, even with the consoles combined it is ludicrous) and calling it a waste of money. For example, it is in fact more troublesome to develop for the PS3 architecture (quotes aplenty), with a smaller proven Star Wars fanbase and disappointing software sales (links aplenty, see EA statements for example). Wouldn't make much sense business wise, right?
Not really. And there most definitely is the target audience on the PC unlike other console franchises would be ignored. The 'we can't do it because of the graphical requirements' nonsense has already been handled by others in this thread so I don't have to.
They're being lazy, that's all there is to it. Or merely postponing PC release, hoping to rack in more console sales.
The fact is companies miss out a lot of cash when doing PC games due to the illegal downloads. On the other hand, they'd still make a lot of profit, PC Gaming isn't dead. And you make a good argument: PS3 sales aren't what people (or at least Sony) expected it to be. Why them and not the PC?
The fact is companies miss out a lot of cash when doing PC games due to the illegal downloads.
There's still illegal downloads on the PC for console games. Those vaunted ISOs...
Not for PS3 games, cause we really don't care much about them.
Not for PS3 games, cause we really don't care much about them.
Agreed.
That is until MGS4/FFXIII comes...
Agreed.
That is until MGS4/FFXIII comes...
Well, confirmed for MGS4 360 version. I think there is a go on FF13 also.
Well, PS3 does have that FF game that is a poor rip on Soul Calibur style fighting game. And for those who is unfortunate enough to remember, Square created such failure before... with a different name. Though I would hope that this time it would be playable, just so that I might say "Aeris Lives"
Unknown acronyms abound.
MGS4: Metal Gear Solid 4.
FFXIII: Final Fantasy XIII.
Well, confirmed for MGS4 360 version. I think there is a go on FF13 also.
Wat? MGS4 is NOT coming to the 360. So is FFXIII and FFXIII:Versus are exclusive for the Sony black-box so far.
Well, PS3 does have that FF game that is a poor rip on Soul Calibur style fighting game. And for those who is unfortunate enough to remember, Square created such failure before... with a different name. Though I would hope that this time it would be playable, just so that I might say "Aeris Lives"
What would that be? I really don't remember...
1) My computer can kick any consoles' ass without thinking twice about it. It isn't a hardware issue - it is a hardware *compatibility* issue. If you've noticed, LA isn't very big on patching products along. Also, there is the decision to go to DX10 (which would really make consoles worthless).
2) There is an incredibly sad hit to the wonderful modding and editing communities.
Going to console-only makes a vanilla one/two-play-through game.
I'm going to be pissed if 360 prices don't reach a justification height by the time TFU ships.
/wonders what the "FU" could also stand for
Maybe they should make a Special Edition for PC. Maybe call it "Super The Force Unleashed" aka "S.T.F.U." :)
Who knows, it could happen.
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years. If we look back roughly two to three years I would say that PCs that were powerful enough to run a fully loaded TFE were very expensive.
Nowadays you can buy a quad-core PC for 600 USD. High end dX10 cards are less than 300 USD now and soon we'll have multi-gpu DX10 cards with 1gig of RAM for under 500 USD.
If LA tries to argue that PCs can't handle such next-gen titles like TFE then I think they are dead wrong. PCs today are designed to handle next-gens like TFE.
As a PC-only game I really hope TFE gets ported to PC.
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years. If we look back roughly two to three years I would say that PCs that were powerful enough to run a fully loaded TFE were very expensive.
Nowadays you can buy a quad-core PC for 600 USD. High end dX10 cards are less than 300 USD now and soon we'll have multi-gpu DX10 cards with 1gig of RAM for under 500 USD.
If LA tries to argue that PCs can't handle such next-gen titles like TFE then I think they are dead wrong. PCs today are designed to handle next-gens like TFE.
As a PC-only game I really hope TFE gets ported to PC.
I'm a bit late mouthing off on this but better late than never. Anyway......
If that is a close starting development time frame, croikies there weren't even any next gen consoles around at that time either. I agree that the statement from Lucasarts is lame. How does one explain the DS version. Are they seriously saying that the PC can't even compete with the DS? Even still, crysis alone has proven that an uber system req. game can, will and does sell the pants off of everything else. Jeepers, I've started on the pong game. Then moved up to the TI 99/4a then an 8088 8/16 mhz computer and so on. Since the 286's, there was always some game pushing the envelope on the pc.
I'll tell you what I really suspect is going on. The PC gamer getting snubbed and kick around yet again by a company that made most of its past revenue from PC gamers. This is the thanks we get other than a few pathetic bantha chips they decide to throw our way to keep their name in our eyes. Look what happened to the ever popular Duke Nukem franchise when they did that. Awww, poor Duke no movie deal anymore. This entire thing about the PC has got me riled up again and no I won't go out and buy a console for just one game either. Mind you, I have nothing against the console I just don't use them nor want to use them I would sooner join myspace for I'd get better use out of that than a console. I'm just ticked off at how the PC crowd keeps getting kicked around and treated not as second class citizens but third class ones because of them.
Anyway, If it's going to be a port from a console, I'd rather not see it come out for the PC then and this so called "not doing a pc version because of the money" is a load of garbage too. I went to petitiononline.com and there is now 14856 signatures. That translates to $594,240 if they sold the games to retailers @$40 a pop figuring that the pc version would sell at $49.99. Factoring that those are signed by the people that heard what's going on. I myself just discovered all this ruckus. If it was going to be ported, those are not bad starting figures for a game already made and just needs a tweak here and there to get it onto the PC.
I pretty much own almost every title from lucasarts right down to the Lego Droid Creator product. I even have the lithographic signature boxes of Pod Racer, Phantom Menace and Xwing Alliance unopened of course since I have the ones I bought in the store I played and still play. Well you get the idea. I think this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin with me and lucasarts even if they come out with "PC this" or "PC that" in the future. I, also, frankly got tired of waiting for another Jedi Knight series without the crappy Quake 3 arena engine which I hate.
Frankly, this is also the last straw for me with the entire Star Wars Franchise altogether. Time to mosey on back over to Star Trek. Although, I would like a Klingon Academy II. In fact, I think it's high time Star Trek got a kick butt RPG going.
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years.
I would say much less than that, judging from the fact that they apparently fight to their last breath to avoid actually showing us anything of the game, save for two videos about their physics engine (and the other thing) and a mountain of worthless concept art.
I, also, frankly got tired of waiting for another Jedi Knight series without the crappy Quake 3 arena engine which I hate.
They only did that once.
Someone saw the sales of Crysis?
Not exactly a dashing sales success, considering you need a NASA computer to run it on.
I think the earliest we heard about this game was Spring 2006 but they could have been doing concepts and even working on the game before that.
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? That depends on how you define "start." LucasArts pitched ideas to George Lucas in 2005 April and I think the Darth Vader's secret apprentice story got approved by GL in 2005 September. But it sounds like there were a lot of major design decisions that didn't get finalized until the end of 2006. Recommend you read TFU Project Lead Haden Blackman's production diary "The Force Unleashed: From Concept to Console" (
http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/#/diary/) to get his take on the concept, pre-production, and production phases of the game.
Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI. :thumbsup:
Even still, crysis alone has proven that an uber system req. game can, will and does sell the pants off of everything else. What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007 (
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17110)?) Crysis didn't even make the list.
I'll tell you what I really suspect is going on. The PC gamer getting snubbed and kick around yet again by a company that made most of its past revenue from PC gamers. This is the thanks we get other than a few pathetic bantha chips they decide to throw our way to keep their name in our eyes. I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.
LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.
Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:
1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 (
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13940) being used in multiplayer?
2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.
3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.
Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI. :thumbsup:
Wow. Wait, what? I could have sworn I've posted before in the past. Hmmm.
Thanks though. :)
What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007 (
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17110)?) Crysis didn't even make the list.
I'm going to quote two people:
Person #1-"We don't know how well it's selling. The figures shown for it that were in the 80-thousands were for North American retail only (meaning, no digital distribution, including the EA Downloader which probably accounts for quite a large chunk of the sales). It does not include sales from other regions, such as Europe, where PC gaming is far more popular than it is in the US.
If anything, it's more than likely that Crysis has sold very, very well indeed."
Person #2- "Ok, PC-gaming is bigger in Europe. Here's a quote I found on the Internet from april 2007:
Footnote: Did you know the largest PC games market worldwide is actually Europe? That's not something we talk about much this side of the pond. It's also not that surprising. The European Union (EU) clocks in at 807 million people--12 percent of world's total. According to Polish-based developer Reality Pump Studios (Two Worlds), without Europe, the company's budget for U.S. and other market PC games would drop to just 30%. And Ubisoft's North American president Laurent Detoc has said the company's computer game sales are roughly one-third in North America versus two-thirds in Europe.
I so wish that US citizens stop thinking that NA is the centre of the world when it comes to... everything."
Also another fact from that link you provided:
"However, digital downloads were not factored in to the NPD data, since the firm only tracks bricks-and-mortar retail sales currently, making it difficult to track exactly how the PC market is trending as a whole with the rise of casual games and even digital downloads for more 'hardcore' titles."
I dunno about you but I'm finding it harder and harder to get PC games in the dwindling retail outlets. We've lost Compusa since it's gone belly up and Gamstop's game section has dwindled to almost nothing and Best Buy is heading the same way. There are no Wallmart's in nyc so I have no idea what they carry in the way of PC games. So yeah so much for bricks-and- mortar sales.
I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.
LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.
Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:
1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 (
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13940) being used in multiplayer?
2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.
3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.
Ehhhh, no condescending percieved. Just a good 'ol fashion debate.
But you are right though. I really haven't been paying attention to what the industry and Lucasarts has been up to lately and I do miss a bit on what's going on like this ruckus. Too busy playing games and other things and taking for granted that Lucasarts will come out with PC games.
Well I'm not disputing the fact that Consoles now far outnumber PC's but the PC is still no slouch in the sales arena either.
1) I so hate that argument about the PC Piracy. Does the game industry honestly believe that copies of console games aren't being pirated as well?
"What's $50 to a computer gamer? That'll just about cover the latest game titles for the Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation 2 living room consoles. But it'll also pay for a microchip, a soldering iron, and a lifetime supply of illicit fun." Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.
2) No dispute there. But seriously, speaking for myself, I could care less about eye candy and physics and just want great gameplay. I still go back to Jedi Knight A.K.A. Dark Forces II even though being spoiled by the eye candy and physics of todays games it sure does look ugly compared to them but damn the game play is so much more fun than it's follow ups and other games.
3) People do think that don't they. If this was a perfect world, that would be so true. I won't go into the ugly tales of woe from the thousands + maybe even millions of console gamers (I haven't really counted) and their issues with their little boxes.
I have only one thing say to Jim Ward and Mr. Blackman:
Bring me a Jedi Knight Game
One that plays nice
And not too expensive
Noowwwww.... GO!
Ni!
Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.
Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.
Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.
Yeah, I stand corrected about that. I didn't think to look for info about that since I don't really follow anything sony has to offer. Still the cheapest blue-ray burner is $219.99 and TDK has a single 25gig disk for only $14. Only a matter of time. By the time they figure out how to crack the PS3 the blue ray equipment will be lots cheaper.
The other thing is are there that many Ps3's in use now anyway.
Well, it is true that the development of Pirated PS3 games is lagging behind, even as the PS3 itself is successfully hacked, for one simple reason: Demand.
PS3 is not doing well on sales, except maybe in japan. This, coupled with the GIGTANTIC AMOUNT OF GAMES OUT FOR PS3, kIND OF PUT OF THE PIRATES FROM DEVELOPING VIABLE PIRATE COMPY.
Well, Sony always had a special focus on Europe. Last I heard, they had some optimistic previsions for sales there.
Here is a transcript I made of an audio recording made by Anthony Baratta on TheForce.Net (
http://www.theforce.net/podcast/files/Hayden%20Blackman%20-%20PC%20as%20a%20Platform.mp3) from a recent The Force Unleashed press conference held at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in San Francisco, CA.
Q: Was PC ever considered as a platform for this game?
Haden Blackman: Yeah, it actually was. At LucasArts, we are big believers still in the PC platform. We look at every single game we do and see whether it makes sense on the PC platform. There's a couple reasons why we, you know, it didn't for this game. One was just the core design and the emphasis on the, I mean from day one we had a game pattern in our hands and the emphasis on the, you know, that kind of visceral, blood-pressing experience. The other was because of basically they don't spec essentially. So for most of the versions of the game to bring that over to PC without a complete redesign would require a really high-end machine and just the number of units we would have to sell to make it worthwhile didn't match up with the installed base for those high-end machines so, you know, as you can imagine things like Pixelux, or sorry, things like DMM and euphoria are very processor intensive. I did take the liberty of not including all the ums and ahs Mr. Blackman uttered during his response as I considered them immaterial to what he was saying.
I don't know what he was babbling about for reason #1. His rationale pretty much sounded like complete nonsense to me. I can't think of a reason why the PC couldn't support a "visceral" playing experience as well as a console, a handheld, or a blasted mobile phone running N-Gage?!?! :carms:
Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.
What is everybody else's take on this?
Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.
What is everybody else's take on this?I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.
^^^
Yeah, but they sure do seem to have a hard time just saying it. ;)
I was left with the impression that Mr. Blackman was trying to come up with some reasons for not making TFU for PC that didn't sound so shallow as "we don't think we'll make any money developing TFU for PC." He tried to sugar coat it I guess but IMHO failed miserably, which surprises me seeing as how this question has been out there for some time now and shouldn't have come as a surprise to him. I expected he would already have an answer prepared for the question but it sure didn't seem like he did. :D
Originally Posted by Char Ell
Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.
What is everybody else's take on this?
Allright. Let me get this straight:
Lucasarts lived on games like Full Throttle and Monkey Island. The PC gamers loved them. Still, the fans would buy this TFU game. But because the 'hyper active shooter punks' use to illegally get the game the fans won't even get the chance (aka: Slap in the face).
It's like the hooligan down-ward spiral of soccer/football! The fans get checked, need to pay lots of cash for a game, because the people who just go there to fight with other 'fans' ruin stuff? From an emotional perspective, TFU not coming for the PC hurts. Alot. :(
Although, from a business point of view, all to ubderstandable.
I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.
Sad, but ditto.
I believe that site is where the false reports started, making LucasArts confirm that it is not coming out for PC.
As far as I know, the game isn't going to be made for PC, which is a real shame since the game seems really interesting and the abilities shown in the trailer very impressive.
Now, as for Blackman's reasoning quoted above, well, I'm studying IT so I know a bit about how the PC works and I can say that what he said about only high-end machines could run it was utter nonsense. That's what's great about PCs, you can adjust the details of any game, whether they are graphics, or sound, which is why you can run a lot of games on a PC. Let's take Splinter Cell: Double Agent as an example of a next-gen game ported to PC (there are two versions of the game, but the next-gen one was the one that was ported to PC, not the current-gen one) and I can say (since I own the game) that the game works great and looks great on a PC (not a high-end one).
Now, his other reason was a typical company reason - they assessed that they wouldn't profit enough from a PC version - and it's a reason I can understand (since I'm also learning some basics about Management in my studies). However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts. I could probably find exact numbers on the net regarding the things I mentioned, but I'm not going to bother myself with that right now. When you think about it, you don't require all those numbers to come to my conclusion, they help, but they're not mandatory.
I've rambled enough, so in conclusion I'll say simply that I hope the LA management realizes their mistake and make a PC version, if not sooner, then when they see the revenue reports on the console market.
However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts.
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.
If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales.
I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.
If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.
If the game was that demanding his words would make sense, but the truth is we have no idea what system requirements would a PC version have, since one isn't planned to be developed. However, after seeing the trailer the game's graphic doesn't seem that impressive, very good yes, but not like something that would require the latest in PC technology. I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.
Well I don't know a lot about Portal's engine but TFU is the first game that these engines (euphoria and DMM) are being used on so they are the latest and greatest. But again I don't know how they stand up to Portal's. But that combined with the graphics might make the PC specs pretty high.
Ah, yes, DMM and Euphoria. I read what they said about those on TFU's official site and I took a look at the example videos very carefully from a programmers point of view. Basically what they claim Euphoria does is make the characters act differently every single time. Not that true as seen in the example video. There you'll see spawned Stormtroopers being thrown against a fragile wooden beam, the poor Stormtrooper will catch the beam and after a few seconds it will collapse and the Stormtrooper will fall to his death. You'll also see two Stormtroopers thrown against that same beam and experience a similar situation. It looks very cool, but when you think about it here's what's happening in the code itself:
A stormtrooper is thrown against the wooden beam, there are two options:
1) He will not grab onto it and will fall to his death;
2) He will grab onto it, at which point the appropriate scripted animation of the panicking soldier is started along with an animation bending the beam under the soldier's weight and a background timer until the beam breaks.
Now we have the following possibilities:
Another (and another and another...) Stormtrooper is thrown against the beam with the one Stormtrooper still hanging and this Stormtrooper faces the same if/then/else that's described above, he either grabs on, or doesn't.
If he grabs on there will be one of the two available scripted animations, which means that the second Stormtrooper will grab onto the beam directly and display the same animation as the first one, or he will grab onto the first Stormtrooper's hand which is the second scripted animation. In any case the background timer started above will expire and the hanging Stormtroopers will die.
So basically it's a complex net of if/then/elses, or perhaps for or while loops whose conditions are determined by a classic random generator, not some high tech simulation (which would also be comprised of if/thens or for/while loops, but they wouldn't have predetermined outcomes, rather they would calculate them using formulas, or something like that).
Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.
So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.
well...what WOULD be revolutionary would be if that after the trooper grabs onto the beam...he would try to climb it...'
no?
It's disappointing that the best compromise LA could come up with for the lack of a PC version for TFU was a novel. As someone above stated, "at least we won't miss the story."
Ctrl_Alt_Del wrote:
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.
If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.
Well. There are two things about Crysis that make it...flop.
First of all, every single Review I have read makes the point of saying the game 'spits PC gamers with the first-gen DX10 cards in the face, who will now have to buy a new card to make the game work properly' (by Power Unlimited, game magazine). Reading this, many gamers might want to....try and download the game to see if it works for their PC. I know there is a demo out there, but that isn't enough for most.
Second, there is an 'semi-active' anti EA thing going on. If you see how many problems the Battlefield franchise has had...I, for example, have never had any battlefield game work properly. And the support is poor, if not absent. Many 'youngsters' who are into downloading I spoke with said 'EA will make money anyways.' :(
But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good! The same is probably true for TFU. It's worth the purchase.
I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.
That's an opinion matter. Any game that's highly anticipated is likely to sell well enough. That did happened to Halo 3, or even Kane & Lynch
, that last one, being rated poorly or as the letdown of the year frequently.
I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.
Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.
Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.
So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.
It's true we can see more or less how the engine is going to work on such a small teaser (I found some animations to be deceptively stuck, even on such a small trailler), but the real-time shown scenario and characters were so insignificant, that we can 't really get a good idea on how it'll work, just have inaccurate guesses
But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good!
It also had low specs for it time.
Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.
Point taken, but I was talking about Portal, not Postal. Since in Portal you need to solve logical puzzles by taking advantage of the laws of physics, they had to make a really realistic physics engine and that engine is without a doubt the most realistic one there is right now (for example: you jump from a certain height into a portal on the floor and you pop out another portal you've created on another floor (now you're flying upwards) and you'll still be under the influence of gravitational acceleration for a few secs, before the force of gravity pulls you back down.) and that engine works perfectly on any standard PC. After seeing the presentations of DMM and Euphoria and not seeing anything revolutionary, I simply don't see any good reason for TFU not to work on the same PC configurations on which Portal works, except for bad engine optimization.
However, I do agree that we can't make full conclusions after seeing only those teaser videos.
Rofl, that was a typo. I meant Portal (The one that comes along on the Orange Box), not that crappy Uwe Boll, Postal game.
Yep, and Havok Engine was used there, the same of Halo 3, Bioshock and other games, like the TR games I've mentioned before.
Actually all of the latest Valve's games use the Source engine, which is based on the Havok 2 engine, but is a lot more advanced.