Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Sounds like he's cutting out a lot of regular PC gamers too, by his words its going to be a game for the truly rich PC elite only. Not all of us can afford GTX 780 cards and Liquid cooling systems...

You won't have to. It will be scalable, just as almost all PC games are. There will be a slew of tweakable options and optimisations, so it'll run on lower spec gaming machines albeit with less graphical fidelity. But that's par for the course for every PC game; Quality Vs. Performance. The difference here is that it the lower and higher ends of the quality settings are perhaps a little "upshifted" compared to the average PC port with the top end likely out of reach for even my GTX780 OC. I can max out every other PC game to date @ 1080 and don't begrudge the Titan or SLi gamer from having a few more bells and whistles than me. They paid for it and it's the first time in a long time there'll be something to really show off the best that games can be (if not downgraded or created for a "lowest common denominator" and ported wholesale), at the same time scaling for lower specs as well.

But, then again, they're already making sick bank before the game even releases. So maybe they can afford to do that.

They may have made some from ship and hangar pre-sales and and what have you (I don't know if that is profit at this stage, or if it goes into the development kitty) but the crowdfunded part isn't profit; it's to cover development expenses. All the excess above and beyond the target (pretty much all of it IIRC since they were already going to make it even before Kickstarter) is going toward a bigger, grander game, more content, stretch goals, longer development time for higher polish/optimisation, etc.

The benefit is that there shouldn't be money to recoup as when being funded by a publisher. When the game's launched, all development will have been funded and there won't be a minimum of 5 million sales just to break even (Dead Space 3 [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/] anyone?). They won't have to sell a single copy to break even which already puts them in an enviable position by any standards within the industry. Consider they also own the IP outright, don't have to pay a cut to anyone else and they can release it and update it when they want [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/microsoft-comes-under-fire-for-five-figure-xbox-360-patch-fee/], not when other companies make them. Valve is probably the only other AAA studio that can boast the same (excepting the recouping costs part which is a direct result of crowdfunding over publisher/self funding).

 

[Caiphus]

They may have made some from ship and hangar pre-sales and and what have you (I don't know if that is profit at this stage, or if it goes into the development kitty) but the crowdfunded part isn't profit; it's to cover development expenses. All the excess above and beyond the target (pretty much all of it IIRC since they were already going to make it even before Kickstarter) is going toward a bigger, grander game, more content, stretch goals, longer development time for higher polish/optimisation, etc.

The benefit is that there shouldn't be money to recoup as when being funded by a publisher. When the game's launched, all development will have been funded and there won't be a minimum of 5 million sales just to break even (Dead Space 3 [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/] anyone?). They won't have to sell a single copy to break even which already puts them in an enviable position by any standards within the industry. Consider they also own the IP outright, don't have to pay a cut to anyone else and they can release it and update it when they want [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/microsoft-comes-under-fire-for-five-figure-xbox-360-patch-fee/], not when other companies make them. Valve is probably the only other AAA studio that can boast the same (excepting the recouping costs part which is a direct result of crowdfunding over publisher/self funding).

Well, that's what they say. I wouldn't believe them unless I had access to their financial statements. And even then, there are a lot of places you can hide $48 million.

Edit: 48, not 44.

 

[Elijin]

Based on some of the numbers being thrown around here, sounds like this game isnt just about alienating the console crowd, but also anyone who isnt on the cutting edge of PC hardware.

I kind of wish this was being done the other way around, and they were spending their own money to make something so exclusive. Would be hilarious to see them crash and burn investing 48m in something so limited in reach.

I feel really bummed out for the backers though. 48m means a LOT of people backed the concept, and I imagine a huge amount of those people are going to find their PC cant run it.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Lol, I actually SLI with twin 460 1gigs, and I have no problem playing Any game.

?..except fucking watchdogs >. < that shit made my power supply overload, and fry itself and the pci slots.

Found out with my new mobo and power supply....the 460s(and soundcard) amazingly still worked

How much power does each card draw? (Quick Google search) Should be less than < 160W TDP (for the 1gb card) at full draw. Even SLi-ing two would be 300-320W at full draw. Any PSU of 450W or greater would handle that (and all but the very top modern CPUs) easily. The worst that should happen if they drew too much power was it would chug badly and get really hot, BSOD or restart the machine.

That's a bizarre result tho...the PSU and the mobo fried and the card in the middle survived...never heard of such a thing. I would say your PSU was faulty/dying already and took out the mobo when it went pop as a result. The cards weren't to blame for it, at least not directly. What's the rating of your new PSU? What's your CPU?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Well, that's what they say. I wouldn't believe them unless I had access to their financial statements. And even then, there are a lot of places you can hide $48 million.

Edit: 48, not 44.

Okay, you're getting into strange territory here. Maybe you're inferring that they're engaged in corrupt business practices, embezzling or some sort of fraud? That's a bold and baseless claim if so but a belief to which you're entitled. So you know, the game is also a tool by the NSA to spy on you and controlling the ships in-game will actually kill people in real-life, just like Ender's Game.

Based on some of the numbers being thrown around here, sounds like this game isnt just about alienating the console crowd, but also anyone who isnt on the cutting edge of PC hardware.

I kind of wish this was being done the other way around, and they were spending their own money to make something so exclusive. Would be hilarious to see them crash and burn investing 48m in something so limited in reach.

I feel really bummed out for the backers though. 48m means a LOT of people backed the concept, and I imagine a huge amount of those people are going to find their PC cant run it.

It's no more about alienating anybody than Halo, Gears of War, Heavy Rain, inFamous, Uncharted, Last of Us or any other console exclusive you'd care to mention. You don't accuse inFamous devs of "alienating" XBox gamers because it's simply untrue. Nintendo doesn't "alienate" anybody by keeping Mario exclusive to their own consoles. It's a baseless and far-fetched claim.

And even if so, so what? So what if a company making a PC exclusive game "alienates" console owners, unintentionally or intentionally? It makes no difference whatsoever since console owners are not their target audience. We PC gamers get one exclusive AAA game in years and it's alienation. Seriously?

And as for PC gamers, unlike our console cousins who get a game that runs the same across the board, we get options to scale games to balance quality and performance (and usually access to ini files, mods, different textures and more). No one is being left out. Lower spec gaming machines will run it on lower settings and higher spec machines will run it with higher settings. That's the same with every PC game.

Why would you wish for a company to lose $48mill? What benefit is that to them, the industry or gamers? You wish them to fail because they are making a PC exclusive game? Is it jealousy? What's "hilarious" about a games company losing tens of millions? That's a very strange statement to make. And irrelevant anyway since the game is the most successful crowdfunded game to date. They'll come to market with nothing to recoup and make profit from the first sale.

 

[Caiphus]

Okay, you're getting into strange territory here. Maybe you're inferring that they're engaged in corrupt business practices, embezzling or some sort of fraud? That's a bold and baseless claim if so but a belief to which you're entitled. So you know, the game is also a tool by the NSA to spy on you and controlling the ships in-game will actually kill people in real-life, just like Ender's Game.

No, but I'm a finance graduate. I'm also not stupid, thanks. They're a privately owned company.

So:
1) They don't really need to be interested in profit. Not really. They can just pay themselves salaries using this pre-order/crowdfunding money until the game releases. Profit is good, but they don't need it to make money for themselves.

2) They could inflate salaries mentioned in 1) to make up that $48 million.

3) They could create the engine under a separate company and buy it off themselves for $20 million, and then expense it under R&D.

And there's plenty more they could do.

Anyway, I don't care. hopefully they spend the money wisely and make a good game. But if they're making a game that is going to, according to the Steam hardware survey, cut out a good half of PC gamers, then I don't think that that's money well spent. But again, thanks to points 1 and 2, they may not need to spend it all that wisely.

Which was my point before you tried to paint me as an imbecile.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Okay, you're getting into strange territory here. Maybe you're inferring that they're engaged in corrupt business practices, embezzling or some sort of fraud? That's a bold and baseless claim if so but a belief to which you're entitled. So you know, the game is also a tool by the NSA to spy on you and controlling the ships in-game will actually kill people in real-life, just like Ender's Game.

No, but I'm a finance graduate. I'm also not stupid, thanks. They're a privately owned company.

So:
1) They don't really need to be interested in profit. Not really. They can just pay themselves salaries using this pre-order/crowdfunding money until the game releases. Profit is good, but they don't need it to make money for themselves.

2) They could inflate salaries mentioned in 1) to make up that $48 million.

3) They could create the engine under a separate company and buy it off themselves for $20 million, and then expense it under R&D.

And there's plenty more they could do.

Anyway, I don't care. hopefully they spend the money wisely and make a good game. But if they're making a game that is going to, according to the Steam hardware survey, cut out a good half of PC gamers, then I don't think that that's money well spent. But again, thanks to points 1 and 2, they may not need to spend it all that wisely.

Which was my point before you tried to paint me as an imbecile.

There are no games like it. Cutting off half the PC Gamers 'now' does not mean they will be cut off forever. Technology progresses, and games that your computer cannot run encourages you to buy newer hardware, the more people buy newer hardware the more the production increases the more incentivie there is to advance the cheaper it gets.

The Consoles initiated half a decade of stagnation. Star Citizen along with games like The Witcher can do 'something' to rectify that, and thank goodness that it does. So what if people can't play it at launch, this game will live for years on end, just like the first Crisis game. They can get it once their hardware can take it, they do not 'need' it at launch.

With its current userbase of 60.000 Backers soon to be expanded to what I believe is 200.000 with the expansion of servers of the current 500.000 that have bought the game in some fashion... I don't think it will lack the playerbase to sustain itself. From the profits it looks as if aiming for the current base is getting them more money than otherwise. It's like luxury products, why make an expensive ship when making cheap ships could make ships available to everyone, why ever specialize in anything? There is profit in niche, the very genre is niche. And when you're aiming for a crowd of fans with a disposable income you are able to make a hardware craving game.

If the game was aimed at 7-yearolds I agree, going the route of Crisis in terms of graphics would hardly be the most wise of decisions. But it's not, it's aimed at the enthusiasts of the old flight-sim games, people who either have rigs that can support this game or have the ability to get one. And from the current money the game is making, it's working just brilliantly.

 

[Caiphus]

There are no games like it. Cutting off half the PC Gamers 'now' does not mean they will be cut off forever. Technology progresses, and games that your computer cannot run encourages you to buy newer hardware, the more people buy newer hardware the more the production increases the more incentivie there is to advance the cheaper it gets.

The Consoles initiated half a decade of stagnation. Star Citizen along with games like The Witcher can do 'something' to rectify that, and thank goodness that it does. So what if people can't play it at launch, this game will live for years on end, just like the first Crisis game. They can get it once their hardware can take it, they do not 'need' it at launch.

Okay, well. Maybe. I don't really know what to say, other than what I have already. They may be able to afford it. KingsGambit even said himself: it is likely that they will be in a relatively unique position where they don't need to sell a single thing to break even.

I still don't think that cutting off half your market, including some of your backers, just to make a very graphically intensive game, at launch is a good decision. Either financially (again, this might not matter) or morally (in the case of the backers).

Edit: In response to your additional stuff:

Specialisation happens with products (boats, in your example) for a number of reasons, but basically there are different markets in an economy for the same class of goods (just like with PC gaming) and because there is a limited ability to offer one good to everyone else (less like PC gaming). Right? There are some differences with luxury goods, inferior goods, price discrimination, actual specialisation of labour or capital (less relevant to PC gaming), economies of scale (although that partially pertains to the limited ability to offer one good to everyone), and with branding (again, a little less relevant to PC gaming).

If you have any problems with that, by all means. I may be talking rubbish. I'm tired and it's 12:30 am.

With a boat, it's difficult to downsize a yacht until you can make it available to someone with a disposable income of $10,000. With a PC game, however, it's relatively easy to offer graphics options so that someone with a middling graphics card is able to play that game.

I'll happily eat my words if they had to drastically change the game to allow someone with a GTX 660, or whatever is the rough equivalent of a PS4, to play it. Otherwise, I don't see why they're unable to do it.

 

[Nikolaz72]

The Backers will be able to get the game when they have a computer that can run it. That's not an if thing, that's more of a -when-. And considering the time until beta is like sometime next year and the full launch may well be in two, it's well within a reasonable time that the current backers have to afford a PC that can run the game. I got my PC for like 800$ and I am well able to run the game, save up twenty bucks a month for the next few years to afford a new PC. If you can't well, maybe just put 10 dollars aside a month for the next year or two and you will be well enough able to upgrade to a PC to play the game by the time the game hits the shelves. Not unreasonable considering the backers for this game which when they backed it would already be described as a game which would need a high-capacity PC.

You don't need dual-config crossfire Nvidia titans to run this game. You just need what is by most considered a midrange rig to run it reasonably. And you don't need to run it at max settings for it to be playable, it'll be a good looking game regardless of the setting its run on.

 

[Floppertje]

It all comes down to trust. yeah, they probably COULD find a way to hide the money, but I (and the majority of backers) believe they don't WANT to. I'm believe they genuinely want to make the game as good as possible and not fuck over their customers. If that's what they wanted to do, why wouldn't they just go with a major publisher?
The exclusivity isn't about alienating anyone, it's like they say: the game won't run on consoles. It's not that we don't want anyone without a top-end pc to be able to play it, it's that we want it to be incredibly good and a side effect of that is that consoles can't run it. Also, I think one of their problems was that consoles are too restrictive for what CIG wants to do.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Okay, you're getting into strange territory here. Maybe you're inferring that they're engaged in corrupt business practices, embezzling or some sort of fraud? That's a bold and baseless claim if so but a belief to which you're entitled. So you know, the game is also a tool by the NSA to spy on you and controlling the ships in-game will actually kill people in real-life, just like Ender's Game.

No, but I'm a finance graduate. I'm also not stupid, thanks. They're a privately owned company.

So:
1) They don't really need to be interested in profit. Not really. They can just pay themselves salaries using this pre-order/crowdfunding money until the game releases. Profit is good, but they don't need it to make money for themselves.

2) They could inflate salaries mentioned in 1) to make up that $48 million.

3) They could create the engine under a separate company and buy it off themselves for $20 million, and then expense it under R&D.

And there's plenty more they could do.

Anyway, I don't care. hopefully they spend the money wisely and make a good game. But if they're making a game that is going to, according to the Steam hardware survey, cut out a good half of PC gamers, then I don't think that that's money well spent. But again, thanks to points 1 and 2, they may not need to spend it all that wisely.

Which was my point before you tried to paint me as an imbecile.

I wasn't aiming for stupid or imbecile, if that came across I sincerely, honestly apologise. I was inferring your choice of either "cynic" or "tin foil hat". There's no good reason at all to suggest that this project specifically is doing any of the above. You can infer that they could be misappropriating the funds but it is baseless (unless you have evidence, or even rumour?) and unwarranted. Such a thing could as easily be levelled against any and every developer out there and would be equally unsubstantiated in the absence of any proof, no matter how flimsy.

Your original point was that they're already profiting. My original point, which still stands is that the crowdfunded money is earmarked for development, not profit. It pays for staff, equipment, servers, tools, software and any other expenses in creating and releasing the game. There may be some left over, they may go over budget but within a reasonable margin that's still not bad practice. I don't know whether ship/hangar sales are profit or development money.

About the minimum spec, a lot of gamers will be able to run it. Some will upgrade especially for it. Some may not be able to run it. So what? The GTX460 is suggested as the minimum spec which is 3 generations/4 years) old and a "top of middle" range card. It may rule out some gamers, but at some point software does need to move forward. I think the XBox360 was so long in the tooth by the time the XBone came out and that it had been holding gaming back from moving forward by at least 4 years. Consider that the newest generation of consoles on release were already two generations behind PCs.

Also consider that since the game was crowdfunded, every sale from day 1 is profit. Even if a large percentage of PC gamers cannot play it, the percentage that can is all profit. Granted there would be more money to be made by having a lower barrier to entry, but then we're getting back into "lowest common denominator" territory. Consoles are not powerful enough to run Star Citizen, so equally nor will similarly specced PCs. That isn't news, that is in a way one of the great things about the game...finally there's one pushing boundaries and showing off gaming PCs. There's plenty of console ports that will run just fine on < 2009 era PCs already.

I have no objection to a game that is developed to make the best use of PC hardware and push the limits. I don't mind that I won't be able to max everything and don't mind that 5 year old machines can't play it. No one criticised Crysis on release for being evil with its high requirements. About time something came out to cater for the top (whilst remaining playable by the middle), without compromise for consoles and 10 button joypads, compromising on map sizes, primitive AI, bodies that disappear after 3 seconds and the rest. It used to be par for the course that games were constantly pushing against the limits of hardware. That all stopped when PC exclusives died, cross-platform development became the norm and the last gen in particularly that overstayed its welcome by several years. As recently as 2013, I was still playing games designed for 2005 hardware.

You can say they're missing out on this or that but ultimately if you want 5 million sales, you will need to make a third person action-adventure, cross platform game with "broadened mass market appeal" designed for the (2005 era) 360 with crumby textures, frequent loading screens and then port it. This is a high end, niche genre game. It will have a smaller audience which is why it was crowdfunded (since traditional publishers aren't interested) and I backed it gladly *because* of this. I don't want more broadened appeal, action adventure tripe made for consoles and ported to PC with UI left unaltered. This is a supercar, not a 10 year old hatchback. And I want more like it.

 

[marurder]

This was one of the main reasons I proudly backed this game's Kickstarter. A PC game with ZERO considerations to consoles, YES PLEASE. No bullshit controls and UI, compromised for joypads. No graphics compromises for inferior hardware. No constant loading screens because of tiny maps compromised for consoles poor memory. No compromises for consoles. I backed that shit so hard my wallet begged for mercy.

Yes. This.

Console owners can go play more Gears of War or Uncharted or whatever the cool kids are playing these days. Consoles have Activision, EA, Ubisoft and Squeenix exclusively pumping stuff out for them before (often shoddily) porting them to PC. We get one title. Two if we count Pillars of Eternity. Which we do.

I agree that consoles are being given so-called AAA games that aren't really that...impressive. But I don't blame the player or the manufactures. I blame the upper management and marketing for the manipulation of the people and rough treatment of the developers. Console users deserve better. All gamers do.

 

[Drizzitdude]

If you looked at the poly count on their models you wouldn't even be questioning this. They said from the start they will not be making a console version of the game and they will never sing another deal with a publisher of any kind, two things that made me want to support the game in the first place.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Its alienating due to tone.

What part? What tone? It's fact that consoles can't run it as is. The hardware cannot process 100k poly character models, 300k ship models let alone 7 million poly flagships. They set out to make a top end PC game and that's what they're doing. That's not alienating, that's targeting a niche market.

Also, conversely, even if their was no reason for the alienation other than exclusivity, PC gamers constantly ***** and cry and hope titles fail because they cant have them, so even if I wasnt addressing the smug condescending tone of the developers here, why is complaining about a PC exclusive (of which there are plenty) immune to the same conditions?

I'll admit annoyance at R* for GTA5 and RDR but that was about it. Find a single example in the history of gaming on any site where "PC gamers constantly ***** and cry and hope titles fail because they cant have them". I don't. And I can speak for a majority too to say that we don't "***** and cry" or "hope titles fail". That is incredibly immature. We simply don't care. A game I can't play has no interest to me whatsoever. I don't care if it fails, succeeds or anything. I would only care enough if it was like a Bethesda game or similar, one I would want to play and in that case I wouldn't "***** and cry", I would buy the console.

You know what I think about console exclusives I've never played like Gears of War, Uncharted, Heavy Rain or the rest? Nothing whatsoever. I have no interest in them and don't mind whatever people who have played them think of them.

I dont want them to lose money for the sake of losing money. I want them to make a project that ambitious on its on merits, rather than raking in everyone's money, and then turning around and making a game which apparently will run at absurdly high settings. And lets be real here, if some of these figures are the middle to high scaling, then even the low is going to be pretty prohibitive.

Games need funding to pay for developers, software, tools and servers in the case of online games. You aren't even a backer so I'm not sure why you object so strongly. I *am* a backer and contributed my modest amount toward the most successful crowdfunded game to date. The most successful. That is *because* it's PC exclusive, because it's a high end game and because it's a niche game in a genre I enjoy. Traditional publishers don't give me any of those things any more, they haven't for years...only "broadened appeal" action-adventure console ports ad infinitum.

Doesn't matter that the game is prohibitive. As of today, the minimum spec is for a mid-range 4 year old gaming PC which by release will be closer to 5-6 years old. I don't care. The XBox360 came out in 2005 and is singularly responsible for holding gaming back by years. Even today on my current gen, top end PC XBox360 ports are the order of the day. Watch Dogs came out for the 360, a game in 2014 designed for 2005 hardware. It's outdated by 9 years even on day 1. No thanks. It's about time someone made a game to provide for the top end instead of the bottom.

You are catered for by Activision, EA, Ubisoft, 2k and Squeenix, every big player in AAA development. Everything they make is for consoles (up until recently and still ongoing, for 2005 hardware to be exact) and crumby ports thereafter. I backed SC because it's not a port and for all the reasons you criticise it. I am *glad* that it is exclusive. Software needs to move forward at some point instead of being held back by crappy hardware, "broadened appeal" and stupidly low barriers to entry so people with low IQs and 2005 consoles can play too.

 

[Caiphus]

Snip

1) Apology accepted. It's late and I've had a super rough day, so I'm rather on edge at the moment.

2) I'm not accusing Cloud Imperium Games of doing anything. I'm saying that, because of the amount of money that they have received, their incentives are not necessarily in line with the wishes of their backers. Because, as I said, if they are only paying money to themselves then their need to break even or profit is diminished. There are no shareholders that may lose their investment if the company goes under. There are no managers that will be unable to exercise their stock options. There are no employees that, like in Crytek, might not be paid.
And I don't have any evidence that they might be shirking their duty to their backers apart from this very article, and the linked one at PC Gamer, which says:

Peterson says it couldn't be done anyway, because consoles, including the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, simply don't have the power to drive the game.

2b) I care how well the game does because I'd like to see the space sim genre flourish, especially now the X series has taken a turn for the worse. I don't really care, aside from the unavoidable fact that the two are intrinsically related, how much profit Cloud Imperium makes.


3) I honestly do not give a damn that the game won't be on consoles; that's not what I'm worried about. I, personally, game on a laptop (and will, even with a GTX 780M, likely be shafted if a PS4 couldn't run the game). I also think that the space sim market is overwhelmingly PC dominated. I also agree that having to change the UI to allow for controllers might drastically change the game, and possibly wouldn't be a terribly smart financial decision because of scope creep and that smaller market. I also take advantage of my own niches on PC platforms (Divinity OS being the most recent example). That's not my problem.

4) A minimum requirement of a GTX 460 is not so bad. My original post was towards Vault101, who has a GTX 680. And my main argument has been based around the rough equivalent of a PS4 (probably ~ a GTX 660). Because that's what the article at PC Gamer suggested.

5) Yes, software does need to move forward. I don't think at this rate. Especially when you have people who have already put substantial money down backing the game. Especially if it's not necessary. If the game does need those high requirements to function, then that might be fine, although should be investigated. But if it's for dick-waving, which is possible given the tone of the interview, then it's not. I wouldn't have criticised Crytek's morals because Crysis wasn't kickstarted. It might not have been a great financial decision, and indeed Crytek looks like it's going bust for various reasons, aiming for graphical fidelity above all else possibly being one of them. But at least they weren't in danger of shafting anyone.

 

[josemlopes]

I dont really agree that its much game to handle, tone down some stuff and make console specific HUDs and menus and there, its the console version.

Not saying that keeping it exclusive for PC is bad (I really prefer that they focus on making the game be as good as it can in on system instead of trying to make a PC game with stuff meant for consoles) but to say that a console version is impossible doesnt seem true to me as the thing that seems to keep them from reaching it is too much work or having to re-work specific things for each version (having a very specific control system for PC and then the other one for gamepads, something like Warthunder, and then the same with the HUD and menus).

In terms of visuals its just toning down a lot of stuff unless the engine is pure crap.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Learned my lesson, and bought a gold rated psu lol. Think 750 watts maybe, and I have a core i7 2700k

750W! Mate, you could quad sli with that with a Core i7 extreme (But only just!). Glad you're up and running again and have power to spare.

I agree that consoles are being given so-called AAA games that aren't really that...impressive. But I don't blame the player or the manufactures. I blame the upper management and marketing for the manipulation of the people and rough treatment of the developers. Console users deserve better. All gamers do.

I agree with the point about management. The trouble is game companies are run by execs who aren't gamers or developers or have an understanding of either. EA have famously said multiple times about "broadening appeal" and the like, which as many critics have pointed out is why so many titles are just homogenised things. Consider Dead Space 3 as an example of a AAA game:

- Released Feb 2013 but with graphics designed for 2005 XBox360 hardware before porting directly to other platforms
- Puzzles which had the solutions next them (to be solvable by people with fewer mental faculties)
- A franchise ostensibly "survival horror" themed became a military shooter (since MMSs are the in thing since CoD)

Like Watch Dogs, a mish mash of other Ubi titles, it is so homogenised, so generic. Consider Baldurs Gate II and Dragon Age II, both BioWare games:

BGII:
- Complex rules, complex puzzles, complex riddles
- Fully managing a party of up to 6
- Stats
- Content not available to every character on every playthru (eg. romance options, strongholds, class quests)
- Still considered one of, if not the best RPG of all time.

DAII:
- No stats, practically no gear management (certainly not for companions)
- Fully voice acted and 3D graphics
- Get all party members, see all content in every playthru
- All romance options available to every player
- Generic combat, significantly easier, no riddles or challenging puzzles
- Considered mediocre to good at best by the majority of gamers and critics

That's BioWare's evolution. Starting with complex, deep RPGs that appealed to a smaller, niche audience and at the end, making homogenised console games anyone can play and finish without great challenge. Even Mass Effect went from a sci-fi RPG to a military shooter in the space of one trilogy on the same hardware platform. That's what the execs want and that's why Star Citizen, Project Eternity and Tides of Numeneria had to be crowdfunded. They're complex, niche games and as such not for the console mass-market.

And that's why I backed Star Citizen. I'm no longer the target market for AAA games. I haven't been for years. The games I want to play are no longer being made. Occasionally there will be one good enough and enjoyable enough but for the most part, I am not catered to. Kickstarter lets me fund those games I want to play that AAA won't give me, instead concentrating on the newer and more populous market.

 

[Vivi22]

I think there has been more then one occasion where people have said the 'graphical arms race' is the thing that's killing the industry with budgets bing blown on only the most swankiest of graphics. There are many ways to make a game great without 5 millon particle shaders on screen, but as my experince has shown, the masses love the particles.

Part of the reason budgets increase so much in the console realm as graphics increase is optimization. You can do a game that looks as good as the best consoles have to offer for substantially less because they have the power to handle it while consoles rely far more heavily on optimization. It's one thing to program some lovely shaders and make some fancy 3D models with gorgeous textures, but what do you think happens when you need to spend twice as much time getting them to run on a console compared to on a PC? Congratulations, instead of spending $10 million on a game, you might now be spending a cool $20 or more depending on the level of optimization required. Because now we're talking about multiple models with varying polygon counts and multiple textures of varying resolution, combined with more programming work to make it all run smoothly and switch between things somewhat seamlessly. Oh, and those levels you were building? Can't handle the draw distance with the number of objects we want on screen so you'll have to change those.

The graphics arms race is part of it, but the fact that it's happening on consoles is the biggest part of the problem. With PC's, you start out with more power, and if you're going to need more power to handle things on the highest settings then don't worry about optimizing it to cut corners, just wait 6 months and companies will have released significantly more powerful graphics cards. Can't do that on consoles though. People are going to expect games released years after launch to look better and better, and the only way to accomplish that is to spend more and more time finding ways to optimize things to run decently.