Firaxis Explains Why XCOM 2 Had to be PC Exclusive

[Smooth Operator]

Well if you only got time and money to do one then you do one, you don't go stretching your team too thin and end up with 5 bad games. If their shit is solid they can still port it afterwards, but if it's just shit ported to everything there will be no redemption song.

 

[elvor0]

this basically makes sense to me, don't necessarily like it but there ya go, I have Enemy Unknown on PS3 and even then, it's blatantly a PC game built for a PC interface, now, I have a PC these days so this news is no skin off my back, so I'll probably still get it, but I do know people who will be disappointed by this news

It worked though. I found EU plenty easy to plug in a pad to my PC if I wanted to relax on the couch or didn't have the space at that moment for my KB/M. There were a couple of niggles (like you can't rotate the camera at the same time as aiming a rocket/grenade like you can with the mouse/kb), but it worked. I'm not sure what complexities you couldn't fix with some menus. It might not be as easy to navigate, but it's a turn based game, so there can be some comprimise. It's a shame console players are going to be missing out on this game, I can only hope Firaxis will port it later on down the line for them.

 

[Kerethos]

It'll probably be ported to consoles later on, with better controls for everyone as a result.

So take a breather console players, you'll probably still get it - only later. But without PC players having to complain about their version suffering because of consoles. So doing PC first seems like the best move for everyone.

But if it stays PC exclusive, that would be sad.

 

[Uliana]

Anyone else worried they're punching above their weight class here? Either that or they're trying to rush it out and are cutting the fat to save time.

"Punching above their weight class"? In what way?

All they're doing is taking the lessons they learned from Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within, and then focusing all their resources to make a PC-only game with the previous game as a foundation. If anything, they're no longer trying to bite more than they can chew so to speak.

Well that sucks for me, personally.

I've got to say the "expertise" thing does ring a little hollow , considering roughly the same team (as far as I'm aware there's been no huge comings or going) simultaneously released EU/EW on PC, 360 and PS3, whose architectures were all vastly different from each other in comparison to these new consoles, and then managed to port the game to everything short of a toaster, and nothing that I've heard about XCOM 2 so far sounds impossible to implement on consoles.

That was exactly the problem that lead to many of the shortcomings of Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within though: a small team whose primary expertise was PC gaming being made to create a game that could be run on consoles as well within a relatively short timeframe and relatively modest budget had to create a lot of concessions just to do so, such as the lack of procedural map generation, certain clunky mechanics and others.

By focusing all of their expertise and effort to creating a game for the single platform which they specialize in, they can be assured to create a tighter and more polished game, rather than spreading it thin over trying to figure out how to make the game run and play for multiple different platforms.

As for me personally, I support multiplatform games due to the fact that I want to be able to have a choice in what system I'd like to play games on, but realize that real world development and business considerations have to be taken into account when figuring out the reason why a particular game can't come out on a particular platform. I'm always glad whenever I see an awesome console game suddenly make the jump to PC (last year's surprise port of the excellent Valkyria Chronicles was mind blowing), so I'm also hoping that at least XCOM 2 makes the jump to consoles later.

However, in terms of development having it be PC only and then porting it out allows the game to be better polished in terms of gameplay, rather than having to make concessions to allow for it to work on all platforms at once. It also means that any bugs or problems that crop up would be fixed by the time it hits the consoles, so think of the PC players as the beta testers (which I've seen in PC-first games like Warframe).

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Or maybe games could be more readily available on all consoles, so no one has to miss out? I'm tired of everyone arguing about who has the best toy.

I agree missing out is a pain in the ass, there's lots of console games that I wouldn't mind paying Australia's over-inflated prices for if they were made in to decent PC ports. The thing is, consoles just can't keep up with the hardware of PCs. Compare Witcher 3 on PC to Consoles for example. They tried to make it work, but the consoles just can't handle it, and it's only going to get worse. Yeah it sucks, but console exclusives suck just as much from the PC's perspective.

 

[Veylon]

It's a turn-based strategy game with a dozen or so units on the board. It isn't going to be meticulously simulating every physical aspect of an alien reactor going critical or a massive building collapsing to the ground or deal with pathing for hundreds of civilians as they flee Chrysalid deathsquads. How "technically demanding" does it really need to be? Surely they can dumb down the models a bit if that's the issue.

Gameplay wise, I don't see that anything would have to change for consoles. They've been able to work on that from the inception of development, even if they had to do so with placeholder sprites and bare lines.

This sounds like a silly reason even to someone who doesn't have a console. If the real reason is that they don't think they'll make money, that's perfectly valid. They're a company; if they don't profit, they don't eat.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

It's worth remembering that it was a surprise XCOM got a console release in the first place considering it's a Firaxis game. The only other console releases out of their entire game history they ever put out were 2 Civ ports. Much as it sucks for console XCOM fans, this is less of an abandonment and more like a return to status quo.

only tangentially related, but i'm gonna get all sorts of blasphemous and say that the most fun i've ever had with a civ game was Civilization: Revolution. it still felt strategic enough to be fun, but didn't feel so dense and obtuse. it's art style was more inviting, the "Form Army" system and their leveling felt rewarding. i played the hell out of that game, getting all 1000 gamerscore in the process.

that's not to say i didn't like classic civ games, but i got burnt out pretty quickly on them. Civ Rev was inviting enough to not do that. in fact, i'd like to see another foray into that particular line of Civilization.

 

[47_Ronin]

I would be pissed except I have gaming PC now. And there I was missing my "welcome-to-the-master-race-parade". Sucks for every one else though, exclusivity always does. I remember Xcom on my Xbox very fondly.

 

[viranimus]

"When we have our meetings, when we talk about stuff, we only talk about PC," said Solomon. "We talk about 'What is the experience like on PC? What does the mouse feel like in this experience?'" He explains that this means that the entire XCOM 2 experience was built with the PC gamer in mind. Some examples of this include the optimizing the interface to be mouse-and-keyboard friendly, and displaying a lot more detailed tactical information on screen, as Firaxis can count on players sitting close to PC monitors (rather than far from their TV screens) and being able to read smaller text.

Not that I have any skin in the game, or any interest in Xcom, But it is nice to know that Firaxis thinks my three 55 inch LED screens connected to my computer functionally do not exist. God forbid in this day and age people have a HTPC.

Guess its a case of Elitists gonna leet.

 

[Uliana]

Not that I have any skin in the game, or any interest in Xcom, But it is nice to know that Firaxis thinks my three 55 inch LED screens connected to my computer functionally do not exist. God forbid in this day and age people have a HTPC.

Guess its a case of Elitists gonna leet.

Consider that not every PC gamer - actually, the majority of PC gamers, are not going to have a three 55-inch LED screen setup. I personally don't, having only a gaming laptop with a 17-inch screen.

Besides, given that this will be a PC game, they'd likely add in UI options for resizing the various UI elements to fit to different screens.

 

[viranimus]

Not that I have any skin in the game, or any interest in Xcom, But it is nice to know that Firaxis thinks my three 55 inch LED screens connected to my computer functionally do not exist. God forbid in this day and age people have a HTPC.

Guess its a case of Elitists gonna leet.

Consider that not every PC gamer - actually, the majority of PC gamers, are not going to have a three 55-inch LED screen setup. I personally don't, having only a gaming laptop with a 17-inch screen.

Besides, given that this will be a PC game, they'd likely add in UI options for resizing the various UI elements to fit to different screens.

Well I am not naive enough to think a large portion even run triple wide at any screen size. However There ARE a sizable number of people who have HTPCs and use them to play games on, if only for one screen. So knowing first hand how well UI options work on HDTVs (when they even exist) in 10 foot GUI, it pretty well is saying that it wont be optimized for that because it predicates it on the assumption of players being closer to the screen.

My point isnt that I expect to be placated for my abnormal usage of a computer. My point is that they have made a statement that illustrates an antiquated notion of what a computer is and does.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Compare Witcher 3 on PC to Consoles for example. They tried to make it work, but the consoles just can't handle it...

I'm sorry, do you have access to information no one else does? Or possibly access to some kind of alt universe? People all over the planet on consoles have been enjoying Witcher 3, so methinks they "tried" and succeeded to make it "work".

They can clearly handle a version of it, and ultimately what matters to the vast majority of gamers is whether they're, y'know, enjoying playing the game.

 

[Spartan448]

That sucks for PS4 and X-Box One users. Perhaps after they release the game they can then port it to the consoles.

Or they could just spend an extra $200 above what a console costs, and buy a PC that is more than 3 times as powerful. That's what, a console and 2 games?

Not everyone can drop an extra $200.00. To afford my PS4 I had to save up for about six months. The gaming rig I have took me about two years to save up for. That is with only having the most minor of bills to pay.

In that case you can spend the same as it costs for a PS4 and get a PC that's 2 times as powerful. Add in the fact that PC games are on average significantly cheaper than console games and long-run investing in a PC offers much greater return on investment, especially since the cost of maintaining and upgrading a PC is significantly less than similar costs for a console.

 

[Spartan448]

it's also deeply unambitious and slightly disingenuous when considering the platforms that EU/EW appeared on, successfully.

So... PC? Firaxis barely managed to break even on their console ports, and that's WITH the profits from EW. XCOM on consoles was a complete and utter failure from a business perspective, it's not surprising they axed the console division.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

So... PC? Firaxis barely managed to break even on their console ports, and that's WITH the profits from EW. XCOM on consoles was a complete and utter failure from a business perspective, it's not surprising they axed the console division.

...'cept that wasn't the line they trotted out, was it, hence my accusation that they came out with rather disingenuous fluff (if Witcher 3 can run on consoles, a rather small scale turn-based strategy game could easily do so). Had they just come out and admitted poor sales were the reason, I'd still be disappointed but I'd accept and understand the rationale.

However, I get the feeling the decision's a bit of both; they want to concentrate on one platform, and the sales weren't good enough on console.

And on that note: console players who didn't buy XCOM:EU or/and EW? Feel shame, damnit! Behold the radically inferior gaming landscape you created...

Then again, from what they've said an XB1/PS4 version isn't ruled out, so if it arrives much later, I'm fine with that.

 

[Winnosh]

I don't get why people are upset at this. You should be happy that they are not being forced to make a console version of it. If a developer wants to create it in a specific way, then you're more likely to get a better product when they are allowed to do so.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Oh? A PC exclusive game that isn't a some godforsaken MMO? You have my attention...

*reads comments*
Unsurprisingly, many comments are just whining and petty jabs at its exclusivity.

*shrugs*
This happened to me frequently during the previous console generation.
I won't celebrate XCOM2's exclusivity since that's just petty and pointless, but I also kinda ran out of fucks to give for console gamers years ago; because some of them acted like smug bastards to me when I had the same problem.

(like when Fallout 3 was new...surprisingly topical)

I think there a little more then technical powerful enough.

As for the power issue, they're both running on downclocked and down specced versions of mid-low range graphics cards from early 2012. Available processing is a serious issue for both, but especially the Xbone, see the extreme lack of 1080p/60fps in releases for either of them.

I'll definitely attest to that.

I had the 'privilege' of trying Wolfenstein: The New Order on an Xbone this past week, and I saw more than a few processing-delay issues play out even with all the heavy event scripting and scene compartmentalization going on. (limiting what the player can see means eliminating a lot of rendering space, and all the level design I played through was EXTREMELY limited; though admittedly I didn't get past the prologue)

The game was noticeably lagging at several points, despite running at what I affectionately describe as "Ass-blind resolution".

Keep in mind, I don't game on huge HD displays at 4k+ horizontal resolutions; I mainly use my laptop's screen so my "standards" for visuals are significantly lower than the stereotypical PC elitist.

 

[Qvar]

My question them becomes why did Firaxis give the exclusive to IGN, of all sites. For the pleasure of antagonizing their core demographic? Because that would be hilarious:-D

If you don't have a console, why would interest you so much that XCOM2 isn't coming to consoles?

 

[Quirkymeister]

That sucks for PS4 and X-Box One users. Perhaps after they release the game they can then port it to the consoles.

Or they could just spend an extra $200 above what a console costs, and buy a PC that is more than 3 times as powerful. That's what, a console and 2 games?

Not everyone can drop an extra $200.00. To afford my PS4 I had to save up for about six months. The gaming rig I have took me about two years to save up for. That is with only having the most minor of bills to pay.

In that case you can spend the same as it costs for a PS4 and get a PC that's 2 times as powerful. Add in the fact that PC games are on average significantly cheaper than console games and long-run investing in a PC offers much greater return on investment, especially since the cost of maintaining and upgrading a PC is significantly less than similar costs for a console.

Could you please demonstrate to me a PC of similar cost to a PS4 (without linking me to that pcmasterrace reddit page, the parts of which aren't available in my country)?

Not having a go at you or anything, just looking at building my own PC and am eager to find any way possible of saving money doing so.

Thanks.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Hmm, guess i will check this game out

Frickin wheel menus and mouse acc....