Just Cause 2 Developer Avoids Making PC Games

[Wicky_42]

To be fair XP is now two operating systems behind.

and still the better os

Buh? Please explain - or is this a statement from ignorance?

This PC gamer OR console gamer thing is getting a bit tired - most people are both (although generally lean towards one) and just because someone games exclusively on the PC doesn't mean they can't like a "console" game.

I agree whole-heartedly. Just because I might have a console plugged into a TV for some split-screen or a couple of exclusives doesn't mean I can't play on a PC for the quality and precision the platform offers. It's insulting to think that what platform you game on is a distinguishing demographic that defines a person.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Maybe, he is just VERY anal and dedicated and though he'd rather not make a PC release he feels dedicated to make it as good as possible. I don't know but seriously...

If he loves consoles so much, let's see him use consoles to develope a game.

[/childish]

 

[Xtroni]

Well as i heard the real problem is the multitude of directX versions and teh fact that you never know exactly whats inside a computer (Consoles all have the same hardware, the PC doesn't). I was on a DICE lecture the other day and they pretty much said the above and that its also much easier to make a game for the consoles since you can product test it on the consoles and know how it works in the end.

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe, he is just VERY anal and dedicated and though he'd rather not make a PC release he feels dedicated to make it as good as possible. I don't know but seriously...

If he loves consoles so much, let's see him use consoles to develope a game.

[/childish]

Weeeeell, consoles games are made on what are called "Development kits" which is basically a specially made Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 with more memory and extra processors and so on, they are VERY expensive but you can actually build a game from scratch on them.

Though other assets may be assembled outside the development kit, an obvious one is pre-rendered cutscenes, though many polygonal models and movements could be coded for on any system, Windows, macintosh, Linux, you name it.

But you can't make a console game entirely on PC... you need at least one Development kit and generally the more the better as more people can work on "assembling" the game at once if you want to get a game made quickly. Though that can make costs increase exponentially another extra financial burden on consoles.

In fact... one thing I mentioned earlier was how it is "easy to port an Xbox 360 game to PC" well it is even easier if you "port" it from the stage previous to it even going into the PS3 or 360 Development kit. There it is easier to allow for higher resolution textures and drop in new features like CUDA.

 

[dochmbi]

If there were no console ports, how many post 2006 (current gen) games would there be on the PC?
My guess is less than five.

AMD & NVIDIA must be loving it.

 

[F8L Fool]

The first thing I thought when I read the title was, "This has to be due to piracy", but then I read the quote from him. Now, after seeing that quote, I'm still left thinking the same thing. In my experience games that are ported to the PC from Console play substantially better than when done in reverse. Not only that but when people have the choice between pirating something for the PC, and paying cold hard cash for it on the console, they often go with pirating. I know many people that pirate a game on the PC in order to "test the content" before purchasing it on a console.

If the game isn't enjoyable for them they simply don't buy it on the console, and it saves them time and money. If it is fun on the other hand they often don't purchase it on the console because they already have the product in hand. So either way money is lost thanks to piracy.

I am thankful that games are ported from PC to console, because there's a lot of great games I would've missed out on had they not. Does that mean it's done well? Not really. It just means that I'd rather have a watered down, semi-glitchy game than no game at all. The best example of what I'm referring to is Dragon Age: Origins, which is substantially better on the PC in every single way.

Once I run into a console game that is inferior on the PC, perhaps I'll see eye to eye with Sundberg, or he'll confess it's a piracy issue and we can all nod in agreement.

 

[XerxesQados]

This is like a film director getting upset about the fact that people might watch their movies on a TV screen instead of in a theater.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I can just imagine the mods for JC2.
That's one reason to want it for the PC.

 

[Jason Evangelho]

...so that was probably the worst byline I've ever seen. Attention editors!

 

[Rack]

To be fair XP is now two operating systems behind.

and still the better os

Buh? Please explain - or is this a statement from ignorance?

Check the system specs for any game that supports XP and Vista/Windows 7. "Upgrading" is equivalent to disabling a core and removing 1 gig of RAM.

 

[Wicky_42]

To be fair XP is now two operating systems behind.

and still the better os

Buh? Please explain - or is this a statement from ignorance?

Check the system specs for any game that supports XP and Vista/Windows 7. "Upgrading" is equivalent to disabling a core and removing 1 gig of RAM.

System specs are one thing. Having an absolutely AWESOME OS is quite another. Everything about 7 is better, bar its base system requirements being higher - that hardly makes XP 'better'.

 

[DTWolfwood]

...

What are u smoking? the PC version has to go thru multiple iterations for varying spec'ed PC. They dont have that problem with consoles. Now the fact this is dx10+ only makes no sense to me but their reluctance to make PC games is well justified. Y deal with DRM and DRM server upkeep? Y have to make multiple texture maps and packs? Y bother localizing the controls to a keyboard? there is the dozen features they added (u listed) just to make the PC version feasible.

If u think its NOT more expensive to make a PC game you are out of your mine. It may not be harder but it sure seems like its more expensive. PC games return on investment is a lot smaller than the mainstream consoles now a days (excluding MMOs). I do appreciate that they are honest and straight up said they dont want to make PC games. rather than the asshole devs who still wants the extra revenue by simply porting over Console versions with only 1 graphical setting (Ubisoft and its compatriots). <.<

The licensing fees? yeah thats covered by the extra $10 you pay for the console version <.<

BUT i did get he PC version. Was lazy and it was ezier to buy it on steam than to drive out to a gamestop to buy a Console version. also Cheaper ^-^

 

[Rack]

To be fair XP is now two operating systems behind.

and still the better os

Buh? Please explain - or is this a statement from ignorance?

Check the system specs for any game that supports XP and Vista/Windows 7. "Upgrading" is equivalent to disabling a core and removing 1 gig of RAM.

System specs are one thing. Having an absolutely AWESOME OS is quite another. Everything about 7 is better, bar its base system requirements being higher - that hardly makes XP 'better'.

Well, "better" is a loose term. For me the only factors that go into an OS being better is that it doesn't get in my way or consume too many resources, is capable of utilising all my systems resources and is stable. By these measures XP is clearly far "better" than Vista or Win 7. But if you place a higher priority on an OS being "awesome" then you could well find that Win 7 is "better" than XP.

At any rate not supporting an OS 3 years after the first alternative was released is strange at best, in this circumstance it is pure madness.

 

[Aurora219]

just a note to anyone wanting to play it today if they pre-ordered it good luck installing it as steam isn't letting you. so thanks steam i pre ordered it to wait on my shelf for 24 hours.

Its bad enough we get it 3 days after America, but the fact we have to wait till 7PM to play the game on our country's release date. When console players will be playing as soon as they get it on the day, and people who pirate it have been playing it for over a week now?

Sorry mate, I think I must have your download slot.

Wait, why am I here reading this? I have shit to blow up!

(I'm really sorry, I know how it feels and I'm being a bit of a bastard writing this; I hate it when Steam denies you your own games for whatever one of many reasons it can muster.)

 

[Treblaine]

...

What are u smoking? the PC version has to go thru multiple iterations for varying spec'ed PC. They dont have that problem with consoles. Now the fact this is dx10+ only makes no sense to me but their reluctance to make PC games is well justified. Y deal with DRM and DRM server upkeep? Y have to make multiple texture maps and packs? Y bother localizing the controls to a keyboard? there is the dozen features they added (u listed) just to make the PC version feasible.

If u think its NOT more expensive to make a PC game you are out of your mine. It may not be harder but it sure seems like its more expensive. PC games return on investment is a lot smaller than the mainstream consoles now a days (excluding MMOs). I do appreciate that they are honest and straight up said they dont want to make PC games. rather than the asshole devs who still wants the extra revenue by simply porting over Console versions with only 1 graphical setting (Ubisoft and its compatriots). <.<

The licensing fees? yeah thats covered by the extra $10 you pay for the console version <.<

BUT i did get he PC version. Was lazy and it was ezier to buy it on steam than to drive out to a gamestop to buy a Console version. also Cheaper ^-^

come on, the majority of the most expensive games ever made have been for the consoles or multiplatform.

http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

See, dominated by Console or Multi platform releases. Killzone 2 cost $40 million to make while Crysis made 2 years earlier - which arguably looked as good if not better - cost only $22 million. And Crysis was set in a freaking jungle rather than a drab and flat city.

And with a 8800GTX circa 2007 you could get Crysis to max out at 720p and 2xAA with good frame rate, same resolution as Killzone 2.

"Why deal with DRM and DRM server upkeep?" (fixed)

That's a VERY good question... WHY BOTHER AT ALL?!? Because things like Ubisoft's DRM certainly isn't to fight piracy.

Valve have got it sorted, their DRM is incredibly lightweight and it JUSTIFIES its existence with constant application of patches, updates and acts as a HELPFUL CLIENT while simultaneously drawing in more business into their store.

"Y have to make multiple texture maps and packs?"

"U" have no clue what you are talking about if you think you need to make or store on disk different resolutions of texture packs for different settings.

"Y bother localizing the controls to a keyboard?"

Err... you seriously think that is a problem? That is the easiest part and to be honest console developers have NO EXCUSE for not allowing 100% customisable gamepads as well. I suppose the justification that idiots out there would be intimidated by it and can only handle multiple choice... well screw that. If they're too dumb to re-map controls then they're too dumb to play the game.

"PC games return on investment is a lot smaller than the mainstream consoles now a days"

Seriously, you got ANY actual source to back up this claim? It's also extremely vague comparing PC-games to the entire console market, consoles can include other forms of income other than games such as consoles sales, peripheral sales, subscriptions, paid-map-packs, licence fee, non gaming content sold in their store (movies)... none of which apply to PC. See comparing console to PC people JUST include the PC-games and not the hardware... on the strange justification that a PC can be used for non-gaming purposes. But why else would you buy a $150 graphics card?!?!

And STILL most official measures only include retail sales of PC games, not download sales since there are so many sources and for strange reason these online stores like Direct-2-drive or Valve's Steam have no legal requirement to state their sale or profits.

Sorry for fisking you... but your "accusations" just came so thick and fast they had to be addressed one by one.

Look, indie developers love working on PC... there is just so much user generated content and new games with a great example being Zeno Clash, the only real cost of development was salaries of people as a result 7 people made it for $200'000. Now it's been out on PC for a while and is taking a long time to come to Xbox 360 or PS3. Same with Trine and several others.

 

[-AC80-]

just a note to anyone wanting to play it today if they pre-ordered it good luck installing it as steam isn't letting you. so thanks steam i pre ordered it to wait on my shelf for 24 hours.

Its bad enough we get it 3 days after America, but the fact we have to wait till 7PM to play the game on our country's release date. When console players will be playing as soon as they get it on the day, and people who pirate it have been playing it for over a week now?

Sorry mate, I think I must have your download slot.

Wait, why am I here reading this? I have shit to blow up!

(I'm really sorry, I know how it feels and I'm being a bit of a bastard writing this; I hate it when Steam denies you your own games for whatever one of many reasons it can muster.)

well i have installed it now but yer it is annoying some one really needs to tell developers that people revive the game early and having to wait is just a piss take

 

[Wicky_42]

Spoiler: snip

To be fair XP is now two operating systems behind.

and still the better os

Buh? Please explain - or is this a statement from ignorance?

Check the system specs for any game that supports XP and Vista/Windows 7. "Upgrading" is equivalent to disabling a core and removing 1 gig of RAM.

System specs are one thing. Having an absolutely AWESOME OS is quite another. Everything about 7 is better, bar its base system requirements being higher - that hardly makes XP 'better'.

Well, "better" is a loose term. For me the only factors that go into an OS being better is that it doesn't get in my way or consume too many resources, is capable of utilising all my systems resources and is stable. By these measures XP is clearly far "better" than Vista or Win 7. But if you place a higher priority on an OS being "awesome" then you could well find that Win 7 is "better" than XP.

At any rate not supporting an OS 3 years after the first alternative was released is strange at best, in this circumstance it is pure madness.

The bolded bit is wrong. XP is more system light, but then 98 is even lighter, and I'm sure your PC could run Windows 3.1 with its eyes closed... metaphorically speaking. That doesn't make it clearly far better - you should consider some of the reasons why 7 uses more resources. One of these is that it pre-loads commonly used applications, ensuring that commonly used programs load faster than XP could achieve, hence larger RAM usage. So wow, it uses more resources to work faster? That greedy operating system!

As to 'getting in your way', are you alluding to the UAC pos that I turned off after installing? Or were you talking about how XP's indexing system is next to useless compared to the speed and efficiency of 7's search box? Or XP's lack of library functions causing you to have to open more windows when, say, using external memory storage?

Or was that a reference to XP's minute drivers list, meaning a visit to manufacturer's site
of EVERY piece of hardware in your PC when you reinstall, rather than the default drivers being able to comfortably support your hardware and most specific drivers being available through Windows Update on 7?

As to 'stability', I'm not sure why you think that XP is any better. I've had no fatal crashes, and no bsod in 7, unlike XP. The ctrl-alt-del function is given highest priority in 7, meaning even if a fullscreen ap goes unresponsive, you can close it in a matter of seconds, rather than the 10min waiting time that characterises XP failures.

In short, the only thing going for XP is its lighter system requirements - and of course, already owning it. However, speaking as someone who loved XP and saw no need to update until I tried out the Win 7 RC, 7 is a VASTLY superior experience in absolutely every regard, from casually customising your workspace to organising file structures to running programs faster. Your arguments to the contrary indicate you don't have any experience of 7, thus making your commentary on it flawed.


EDIT: oops, I missed a point - system resource usage. I'm not sure what you were getting at there, but seeing as there's not 64 bit XP, there's no way it can use more than 3Gb of RAM... unlike other the 64 bit OS. Care to elaborate on what you were talking about?