Porting From PC to Console Is Doing Things Backwards, Says Rage Dev

[Sacman]

And this is why we can't have nice things...

 

[Ninjat_126]

Since I don't have the money to buy an experimental supercomputer from space, I'm happy.

I'll be getting this on my PS3 if I buy it at all, because upgrading to hardware that can run this game will cost more money than I have, not including the cost of the game.

You're forgetting that gamepads have less buttons than keyboards. Therefore if you map actions to every keyboard button then you can't play that game on console. I'm sure the elitists would be happy, but that is the wrong stance.

Map the controls and optimise for consoles. Then when it's running on consoles well, tweak the menus, graphics and controls to take advantage of the mouse+keyboard and the potentially superior hardware.

 

[antipunt]

*Enters thread*

<__>

*cries in a corner*

 

[The Bandit]

If you want to make games for children then console is the way to go, if you want to make games for intelligent mature gamers then PC is the way to go. As we can clearly see with such games as the Witcher 2.

The Witcher 2 was developed with a console in mind through and through. I do not see how it helps you make your point.

Really?

No it was made largely with gamepad in mind but gamepad=/=console

Witcher 2 is full of stuff that would be utterly alien and hated by console gamers, for one it aims for graphics that would have to be hideously toned down for consoles. And the content, particularly the sex, is a liability very unlike console title where everyone is rightly terrified of their boxed copy being banned from Wal-mart.

Also, it's not even out on Xbox 360 yet. Likely won't be for a while and if they want to keep those graphics and a decent framerate, then the resolution is going to have to go way, WAY down. Right down to 1024x576 probably.

Witcher 2 deserves 1080p and 60fps.

All the sex makes it perfect for fourteen year old adults.

 

[liquidangry]

In all seriousness I think its deliciously ironic that PC gamers get ports because the market is smaller, in effect less sales. How to pc gamers respond? By pirating the game because in "protest" which srinker the pc market leading to more ports.

Its hilarious to watch the downward spiral. Crysis: the bastion of PC glory and dominance. Crysis 2: console love on a bun.

Heh, and then people will realize they can just run their pirated 360 and ps3 software with an emulator on their PC once they stop making PC games. It's all spiraling down the shitter. Free to play and micro-transactions will take over everything. I'm just waiting for the government to allow Microsoft and Mac to start treating computers like consoles where they control all content and disallow all unapproved 3rd party programs. *sigh* Alas poor Linux I knew him well.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I think trying to get a game to run on lower level hardware would be a lot easier than trying to make it and then go through and optimize everything afterwards. Probably why we get so many shitty ports on PC.

 

[internetzealot1]

Damn straight.

 

[Nightbringer]

The PC is 10x more powerful but you and Carmack are mystified as to why that difference in power is not being demonstrated...

I thought Carmack was smart. Bitching about the PC not showing it's potential while also stating that your next game will focus mainly on what consoles are capable of. These two things are related you know.

Carmack is pretty smart. I mean... he builds freakin' rocket ships. (I also think he's being misquoted here, but whatevs.)

The argument about PCs being "x percent" more powerful are very misleading, and are misusing raw numbers. For example, consider that a 5000HP train isn't going to win a race against a 500HP muscle car - despite the raw HP numbers being far skewed in the train's favor.

The architecture of an XBox 360 is actually significantly different in many ways from a desktop PC... the main reason applications are more readily migrated is because Microsoft controls the development environment on both platforms. The PS3 is a bit further differentiated, but not nearly as much as people think... the challenges of developing for it stem as much from the development tools provided by Sony as from the uniqueness of the platform.

Consoles are purpose built for real-time graphics/gaming - which is why PCs, while most certainly able to eclipse their abilities through brute force, aren't necessarily "zomg 50x bettar!!11one".

 

[Nightbringer]

Heh, and then people will realize they can just run their pirated 360 and ps3 software with an emulator on their PC once they stop making PC games. It's all spiraling down the shitter. Free to play and micro-transactions will take over everything. I'm just waiting for the government to allow Microsoft and Mac to start treating computers like consoles where they control all content and disallow all unapproved 3rd party programs. *sigh* Alas poor Linux I knew him well.

The future - in my opinion - is going to be in the migration of games from locally held content to residing on service platforms. It will take a while of course, but OnLive and Gaikai are demonstrating what's to come.

 

[Frotality]

nice for them to finally just come out and say "fuck you PC gamers, consoles give us more money."

well 10 years from now when consoles are obsolete and gaming has moved on to digital distribution, we'll see if i dont remember this.

 

[ryo02]

I will be getting it for console but which one the 360 or ps3? the ps3 is more capable but I hear theyre having trouble keeping rages frame rate up on the ps3?.

 

[Nightbringer]

nice for them to finally just come out and say "fuck you PC gamers, consoles give us more money."

well 10 years from now when consoles are obsolete and gaming has moved on to digital distribution, we'll see if i dont remember this.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally. If a bakery decided to build a shop in the next town over because they felt it would be more profitable than building in your town... would you shake your fist and vow that you won't forget their "affront"?

Game developers are businesses like everything else, and if they want to keep making games they need to make decisions that minimize risk and maximize return on investment.

 

[MrGalactus]

Why don't devs do what Splash Damage did with Brink? They made each version seperately. No ports.

 

[Omnific One]

Guys, let me remind you that this is about the controller, not about the entire game (which was dev'ed on PCs).

I mean, I'm a PC gamer, but Christ... some of you need to chill.

It's a hell of a lot easier to make tight PC controls; plus, PC gamers can change the hardware mouse sensitivity and related elements, while a console gamer can't without controller mods.

 

[ecoho]

I don't have any problem with focusing on consoles as the primary platform. But unfortunately what this usually means is not "we will focus only one third of the energy on PCs", but "fuck PCs, you guys are getting a crappy port".

If you want to reduce the input, graphics and options - I guess it makes sense to work on the easy version first.

Actually, if you have any intention of doing both versions right, I think it is a lot better to develop primarily for PC (but with a controller). Basically the PC needs extra features/complexity and it is far easier to make a console version from a PC game than the other way around, because you can just fix most of the settings at whatever will work for that console.

The control scheme is a little different of course, so I understand they want to get that right on consoles first. However, I don't think there is any reason why they can't also keep the PC (and keyboard + mouse) into account when developing the game.

ok i went back and reread the article and heres what ive got from it and what i think he was trying to say. they are making it on the pc but not syincing the controls to anything but controllers now. now when you think about it this is a great idea, see one of the reasons ports from pc games fail is that they dont take the time to optimize the controls for consoles, which is in fact a hell of a lot harder to do then PC, so the game flops and the publisher losses money. now if you do what they are doing making the controls (not the graphics as some have incorrectly assumed) for consoles the main focus they wont screw over their majority and still have a great game for the minority as they can do the pc right in less time(a keyboard and mouse are not that hard to work out controls for expessialy if its a pc developer) so relax my PC brothers its not the devil.

 

[Krion_Vark]

If you want to make games for children then console is the way to go, if you want to make games for intelligent mature gamers then PC is the way to go. As we can clearly see with such games as the Witcher 2.

The Witcher 2 was developed with a console in mind through and through. I do not see how it helps you make your point.

The Witcher 2 was NEVER developed with the Console in mind. It was PC first all the way. It was later decided that it would be ported to the consoles.

 

[XiahouDun]

Reading this made me realize just why thay haven't made a good game since Quake II. I'm not even a "PC gamer purist", but them saying this is like a company saying "well, we decided to make it for the Wii before porting it out to 360/PS3".

 

[zehydra]

Well of course it makes sense to develop for the consoles primarily (if you're going to be multiplatform, of course).

Imagine you have two boxes, A(PC) and B(console).

A is a bigger box than B.

If you were to develop for A first, and then you tried to fit A into B's box, you'd have to take away parts of the product before you could fit it in box B.

If you develop for the smaller box first, then you won't have to worry about fitting it into either box.

(of course the problem with this approach is that A will have a MUCH bigger box than necessary, and the product will not be as good for A as it could've been.)

It's a sacrifice of possibilities for accessibility.

 

[Nobby]

Meh, chances are low that i would buy this game anyway, and this helps lock home my indifference. Has id made anything worth playing since the 90's?

None that have interested me that's for sure.

 

[El_Ganso]

Who the fuck is Todd Hollenshead? Any gamer should know that the brains behind anything id does is Carmack, and Carmack (during an E3 interview) said that looking forward they should be developing for the PC first and deploying on consoles.

The video that many people have linked in the thread clearly shows that Carmack said that when they started developing Rage 6 YEARS ago they where focusing on the consoles, and in hindsight that was a mistake, because as we all know PC's out perform consoles by the end of a console's life cycle.

So, Mr. Hollenshead, you should do whatever the hell CEO's do and leave the tech decisions to Mr. Carmack