I was actually surprised he would say something like that. The achilles heels on consoles is the small amount of RAM (both video and system) which would make PC's the definitive answer for RTS whereas for FPS it's about the right amount.
Perhaps the Supcom port on 360 is looking better than we think.
The achilles heels on consoles is the small amount of RAM (both video and system) which would make PC's the definitive answer for RTS whereas for FPS it's about the right amount.
I'm not sure where you're getting this vibe from. The biggest problem of RTS gaming has always been the interface, not the amount of RAM. Games like Starcraft or Warcraft II were ported at some point (N64 and PSX respectively), it's just that the companies in charge didn't really see the demand for it. A shooter easily can eat up huge amounts of RAM, too, if you want to. The lack of RAM and VRAM is one of the reasons why the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Crysis won't look as good as the original version on a fast PC.
Chris Taylor: Well one of the key things that is really affecting the economics and the success of gaming in general is piracy on the PC. So one of the reasons we'll see RTSs on the console is because people can't pirate it. That's why we're going to see a lot more of everything on the console. When you look at the sales of really hardcore games like Crysis and you think, "Wow, those games should have sold a lot more," you realize that's probably due in large part to piracy. And you realize that a game like Crysis would have done its true numbers if it had launched on console first. -IGN Staff
That was the first thing Taylor was quoted as saying in the article and it is the most important reason why most games, not just RTS games, will be released on a console platform. I bet most companies prefer eliminating the PC gaming market in favor of a much more lucrative one. At least until we whine.
To the guys in the white van outside my house:
Damn pirates. I myself am totally innocent of piracy and I swear I have never stolen or downloaded modifications for any of my games. I was accused of pirating Barbara Streisand's second-to-last concert. You know the one? That video where Bob Barker tears off her shirt in a savage reenactment of the Super Bowl a few years back? But that was never proven on camera.
A specialist in baby poop must be one of the most comically tragic professions I've heard of. ~ Wordsmythe
Chris Taylor: Well one of the key things that is really affecting the economics and the success of gaming in general is piracy on the PC. So one of the reasons we'll see RTSs on the console is because people can't pirate it. That's why we're going to see a lot more of everything on the console. When you look at the sales of really hardcore games like Crysis and you think, "Wow, those games should have sold a lot more," you realize that's probably due in large part to piracy. And you realize that a game like Crysis would have done its true numbers if it had launched on console first. -IGN Staff
I take issue with this statement. As I have said before (IMHO), blaming piracy for the lack of sales on the PC platform is the same as pissing in my ear and telling me it is raining. Crysis probably was not the best game to use as an example since the mere murmur of its name can cause certain home computers to quake in fear at the thought of running it. Crysis probably did not sell as well as expected due to it being targeted to high range PCs. I would have liked to picked up Crysis, but my PC would have undoubtedly shot sparks out its back during the install process. There is no doubt that Crysis would have done its "true" numbers if it had been released on the console first, since every consumer knew that the game could run flawlessly (in theory anyways) if they picked it up.
A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk In Dark Places
"I may be out of ammo but I ain't out of chainsaw B*TCHES!" - Sinister's warcry for Gears of War
I take issue with this statement. As I have said before (IMHO), blaming piracy for the lack of sales on the PC platform is the same as pissing in my ear and telling me it is raining. Crysis probably was not the best game to use as an example since the mere murmur of its name can cause certain home computers to quake in fear at the thought of running it. Crysis probably did not sell as well as expected due to it being targeted to high range PCs. I would have liked to picked up Crysis, but my PC would have undoubtedly shot sparks out its back during the install process. There is no doubt that Crysis would have done its "true" numbers if it had been released on the console first, since every consumer knew that the game could run flawlessly (in theory anyways) if they picked it up.
Same here. As far as I know, Command and Conquer 3 on the PC did very well. The problem is not piracy (IMHO). In SupCom's case, the main problems are 1) it is harder to learn to play, and developer really didn't put too much effort to communicate with the playerbase and educate them (see SoSE) 2) the single player campaign is lackluster at best.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game and its complexity, but I can see why it didn't sell well, I was pretty disappointed with the campaign, and didn't even bother finishing it.
Stop blaming piracy for everything! Stop trying to treat your customers like criminals!
As another counter point to his claim, Oblivion had NO COPY PROTECTION, and guess what it sold very well on the PC!
Decisions are just decisions, there are neither "good" or "bad" LobsterMobster wrote:
*In response to being rewarded with a in-game shack for NOT nuking FO3 city Megaton*
Yeah, but if you set off the bomb in Megaton you are rewarded with a parking lot!
We'll see how he feels about RTS on a console when Supreme Commander flops. It's not just a question of whether or not piracy exists, although I'd never claim it's not a factor.
Valve seems to be doing alright making great games that run and a wide range of systems. Maybe developers should look into that.
Crysis is a bad example and I think Chris Taylor is misinformed. The NPD numbers for Crysis were bad but a week or two after those numbers came out EA said it has sold over a million copies worldwide. Most of which were digital downloads.
Crysis is a bad example and I think Chris Taylor is misinformed. The NPD numbers for Crysis were bad but a week or two after those numbers came out EA said it has sold over a million copies worldwide. Most of which were digital downloads.
Yep, that is what I read too. Doesn't surprise me though, since it seems that everyone's connected to the "tubes" now-a-days.
Decisions are just decisions, there are neither "good" or "bad" LobsterMobster wrote:
*In response to being rewarded with a in-game shack for NOT nuking FO3 city Megaton*
Yeah, but if you set off the bomb in Megaton you are rewarded with a parking lot!
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
Location: Standing over a stained copy of an old Ronald McDonald ad, masturbating furiously screaming MY WAY!
Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 - 12:06pm
Well, I was a big Total Annihilation fan and he didn't manage to sell me on Supreme Commander, so I didn't buy it. Don't feel like buying it after the mediocre reviews it got, so I don't think his problem lies only in the piracy...
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
I can't even wrap my head around putting an RTS on console. I think the only game that would come close to being decent on the console is World in Conflict.
I say this because of the FPS style camera controls. However, when it comes to selecting units and abilities fast enough it will definitely fall short.
Well, I was a big Total Annihilation fan and he didn't manage to sell me on Supreme Commander, so I didn't buy it. Don't feel like buying it after the mediocre reviews it got, so I don't think his problem lies only in the piracy...
Same goes for me, word for word. The demo for SC made it seem actually less interesting that TA.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Good lord, I wouldn't have expected brilliance like that from that nemeslut Quintin Stone!
I wonder what Taylor would say about Sins of a Solar Empire, which has zero copy protection, appears to be selling well (#2 for PC games and #44 overall for video game sales on Amazon as I type this) and has received good reviews.
While blaming piracy as the primary reason for sales failures is a cop-out, piracy is not such a small factor as many people in the gaming community try to claim it is. Within my workplace, whenever discussing a non-subscription-based game for pc's, it quickly becomes apparently that more people are playing pirated games than legitimately purchased games. This ratio is lower for consoles in general (though back in the days of the Dreamcast, I was the only employee in my department who actually bought my DC games), with extra hoops to jump through for console games.
I've also seen not just computer geeks depending upon piracy for pc gaming. It's even more rampant amongst the script kiddie community (again, based on personal anecdotal evidence), and even a surprising number of "regular" people are just getting pirated games from tech-savvy types who rip the games onto DVD's for them.
I'm fully against draconian security measures that make my experiences as a legitimate customer more difficult and frustrating than that of the pirates. But piracy is an issue, and a sizable one at that. It's just not the only -- or even the primary -- issue facing PC gaming.
The game could be Ray and Greg jumping out of the box and kicking you in the junk, and I'd still be on message boards defensively saying people were being too harsh on it.
We'll see how he feels about RTS on a console when Supreme Commander flops. It's not just a question of whether or not piracy exists, although I'd never claim it's not a factor.
Valve seems to be doing alright making great games that run and a wide range of systems. Maybe developers should look into that.
I have to agree. His claim of piracy being such a factor in the game's financial failure sounds suspiciously like sour grapes, or possibly just denial. I also heard an interview where I asked a question as to whether the high system requirements of the game were a concern, and he basically responded that they aimed to go all out in terms of requirements in order not to compromise gameplay. Of course, there was no mention about the fact that doing so would limit them to a small corner of the overall market. I wonder now if that no-compromise approach is translating to the console version or not.
Total Annihilation was a phenomenon, but Supreme Commander just didn't catch people the same way, and I think the console market has far less tolerance for the hardcore RTS mentality that the game seems to promote. Honestly I don't anyone who played SupCom, pirated or not.
I loved Total Annihilation but I found SupCom to be dull. I haven't tried it with dual-monitors so maybe that will change my tune but otherwise it just kind of sucked.
CoH and C&C3 were both very good games. And I believe SC2 is going to destroy sales charts. I don't care if it can "re-capture" the magic, it will be a launch day sale for me.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
"Chris Taylor: Once upon a time, maybe ten years ago, I might have said keyboard and mouse, too. That doesn't even come up in the darkest corners of my mind anymore. I could see a little touch screen like an iPhone on the middle of your joypad, but definitely not a keyboard and mouse. It's all about the beauty of having the traditional console type experience with a slight augmentation of an advanced control. It's gotta be robust. It's gotta be able to be kicked around on the floor. You can't have a tricky, complex gadget in the living room. It's gotta be able to take abuse. It's gotta be cheap, otherwise it won't catch on. We don't want to bring all of the baggage of the PC to the console."
I say too what about the 360 chatpad? I see a lot of hotkeys there perfect for a rts game.
Now playing a RTS with one of those new touch screens would absolutely rock, but i'm sure we're YEARS away before seeing a controller/console adapt to something like that.
I also think Supcom will flop. Already on gametrailers the comments from console fanboys are "omg whats that it looks like a ghey PC game" etc.
As much as I tried to like Supcom I couldn't get into it either. It has some killer features though that ultimately I would like in a better game. Ridiculous zoom out, multi monitor and no unit cap specifically but otherwise I found it to be a really bland "PC nerd" game. It reminded me of when I basically spent my entire birthday money on Outpost on the PC back in the day. It promised to be a NASA influenced Star Trek but cooler, scientific and the second coming of christ. However what I got was painfully droll, restricted to one planet (I think it was Mars) and sucked all the fun out of space colonisation. Your city also never looked anywhere near as cool as the box art either. I spent so much time trying to like it just because I was pissed at having spent the money. That's probably how I would have felt about SupCom had I bought it. I only know one guy that plays it and hes the worst PC zealot I know, the kind that treats all computers that are even slightly inferior to his as part of the "Plague" that PC developers cater to and are directly responsible for ruining his PC gaming experience. It also sounds like Chris was trying to zero in on that audience at the expense of everyone else so gee I wonder what happened
Spunior wrote:
Quote:
The achilles heels on consoles is the small amount of RAM (both video and system) which would make PC's the definitive answer for RTS whereas for FPS it's about the right amount.
I'm not sure where you're getting this vibe from. The biggest problem of RTS gaming has always been the interface, not the amount of RAM. Games like Starcraft or Warcraft II were ported at some point (N64 and PSX respectively), it's just that the companies in charge didn't really see the demand for it. A shooter easily can eat up huge amounts of RAM, too, if you want to. The lack of RAM and VRAM is one of the reasons why the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Crysis won't look as good as the original version on a fast PC.
RTS' are probably the most graphically and physics... ly demanding games now since they moved to 3D. Especially as they close the gap with FPS' on the level of detail. With an FPS or RPG, you can closely control and predict your resource usage, especially movement via level pacing and how quickly the player can move through the level because you only need to display a relatively small area, fixed # of spawns, activity at a time. With an RTS however, the RAM is even more unusual because even with a unit cap you can have a massive battle going on, buttload of high res models and textures, shaders etc and especially with a game like Supcom where the unit numbers can get ridiculous and to accomodate that you need loads of RAM. The other thing with RTS' is map size. Both these things are going to be killers on the console. World in Conflict and Endwar with their more FPS style cameras will work in consoles' favor, although I still predict World in Conflict will have pop-in that will make Mass Effect look like 100fps
However on the PC, SupCom's main problem was being CPU bound which isn't going to be a problem with consoles. If anything there is some advantage to be had there. PCs already have gobs of ram both ways.
Chris Taylor is awesome, so I won't criticize his PC doom-and-gloom right now. Someone needs to hook him up with Steamworks though.
Gaming / PC Tech Blog: www.blastprocessing.net
Xbox Live: Legion SB / PSN: Legion_SB / Steam: legion028
How often do you get to follow greatness? http://twitter.com/legion
I was actually surprised he would say something like that. The achilles heels on consoles is the small amount of RAM (both video and system) which would make PC's the definitive answer for RTS whereas for FPS it's about the right amount.
Perhaps the Supcom port on 360 is looking better than we think.
I'm not sure where you're getting this vibe from. The biggest problem of RTS gaming has always been the interface, not the amount of RAM. Games like Starcraft or Warcraft II were ported at some point (N64 and PSX respectively), it's just that the companies in charge didn't really see the demand for it. A shooter easily can eat up huge amounts of RAM, too, if you want to. The lack of RAM and VRAM is one of the reasons why the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Crysis won't look as good as the original version on a fast PC.
That was the first thing Taylor was quoted as saying in the article and it is the most important reason why most games, not just RTS games, will be released on a console platform. I bet most companies prefer eliminating the PC gaming market in favor of a much more lucrative one. At least until we whine.
To the guys in the white van outside my house:
Damn pirates. I myself am totally innocent of piracy and I swear I have never stolen or downloaded modifications for any of my games. I was accused of pirating Barbara Streisand's second-to-last concert. You know the one? That video where Bob Barker tears off her shirt in a savage reenactment of the Super Bowl a few years back? But that was never proven on camera.
A specialist in baby poop must be one of the most comically tragic professions I've heard of. ~ Wordsmythe
Zen Mutty Music
I take issue with this statement. As I have said before (IMHO), blaming piracy for the lack of sales on the PC platform is the same as pissing in my ear and telling me it is raining. Crysis probably was not the best game to use as an example since the mere murmur of its name can cause certain home computers to quake in fear at the thought of running it. Crysis probably did not sell as well as expected due to it being targeted to high range PCs. I would have liked to picked up Crysis, but my PC would have undoubtedly shot sparks out its back during the install process. There is no doubt that Crysis would have done its "true" numbers if it had been released on the console first, since every consumer knew that the game could run flawlessly (in theory anyways) if they picked it up.
A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk In Dark Places
"I may be out of ammo but I ain't out of chainsaw B*TCHES!" - Sinister's warcry for Gears of War
Same here. As far as I know, Command and Conquer 3 on the PC did very well. The problem is not piracy (IMHO). In SupCom's case, the main problems are 1) it is harder to learn to play, and developer really didn't put too much effort to communicate with the playerbase and educate them (see SoSE) 2) the single player campaign is lackluster at best.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game and its complexity, but I can see why it didn't sell well, I was pretty disappointed with the campaign, and didn't even bother finishing it.
Stop blaming piracy for everything! Stop trying to treat your customers like criminals!
As another counter point to his claim, Oblivion had NO COPY PROTECTION, and guess what it sold very well on the PC!
Decisions are just decisions, there are neither "good" or "bad"
LobsterMobster wrote:
We'll see how he feels about RTS on a console when Supreme Commander flops. It's not just a question of whether or not piracy exists, although I'd never claim it's not a factor.
Valve seems to be doing alright making great games that run and a wide range of systems. Maybe developers should look into that.
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
Crysis is a bad example and I think Chris Taylor is misinformed. The NPD numbers for Crysis were bad but a week or two after those numbers came out EA said it has sold over a million copies worldwide. Most of which were digital downloads.
JUST PUZZLED YOUR ASS UP, SON! -Mr Crinkle
Right on. They are clunky with a gamepad. Things have improved, but I still feel like I'm half drunk when I command troops on the 360.
Xbox Live: StaatsM
Yep, that is what I read too. Doesn't surprise me though, since it seems that everyone's connected to the "tubes" now-a-days.
Decisions are just decisions, there are neither "good" or "bad"
LobsterMobster wrote:
Have you considered, just for a moment, that maybe you are half drunk?
JUST PUZZLED YOUR ASS UP, SON! -Mr Crinkle
Unless every console is going to get a mouse or a Wii pointer, I'll stick to the PC, kthxbai.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Don't forget this guy is trying to sell his game.
I will cut Chris Taylor some slack because Demigod looks so insanely cool.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
Well, I was a big Total Annihilation fan and he didn't manage to sell me on Supreme Commander, so I didn't buy it. Don't feel like buying it after the mediocre reviews it got, so I don't think his problem lies only in the piracy...
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
I can't even wrap my head around putting an RTS on console. I think the only game that would come close to being decent on the console is World in Conflict.
I say this because of the FPS style camera controls. However, when it comes to selecting units and abilities fast enough it will definitely fall short.
Thanks for standin' still Wanker!
-XBox Gamertag: Tempest Blaze (Without the Y)
Same goes for me, word for word. The demo for SC made it seem actually less interesting that TA.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Eh, I think RTSes can work on a console, yeah, but it's going to be interesting to see if people buy it. Same argument was made about FPSes.
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
I wonder what Taylor would say about Sins of a Solar Empire, which has zero copy protection, appears to be selling well (#2 for PC games and #44 overall for video game sales on Amazon as I type this) and has received good reviews.
While blaming piracy as the primary reason for sales failures is a cop-out, piracy is not such a small factor as many people in the gaming community try to claim it is. Within my workplace, whenever discussing a non-subscription-based game for pc's, it quickly becomes apparently that more people are playing pirated games than legitimately purchased games. This ratio is lower for consoles in general (though back in the days of the Dreamcast, I was the only employee in my department who actually bought my DC games), with extra hoops to jump through for console games.
I've also seen not just computer geeks depending upon piracy for pc gaming. It's even more rampant amongst the script kiddie community (again, based on personal anecdotal evidence), and even a surprising number of "regular" people are just getting pirated games from tech-savvy types who rip the games onto DVD's for them.
I'm fully against draconian security measures that make my experiences as a legitimate customer more difficult and frustrating than that of the pirates. But piracy is an issue, and a sizable one at that. It's just not the only -- or even the primary -- issue facing PC gaming.
How well did BFME2 do on the 360 this past year?
XBox Live: fyedaddy
And C&C 3? It got some strong reviews.
kuddles wrote:
Not sure, but i played the C&C3 demo and while it's better from past RTS games it was still clunky compared to the PC.
Gamer Tag: Rantyr
I have to agree. His claim of piracy being such a factor in the game's financial failure sounds suspiciously like sour grapes, or possibly just denial. I also heard an interview where I asked a question as to whether the high system requirements of the game were a concern, and he basically responded that they aimed to go all out in terms of requirements in order not to compromise gameplay. Of course, there was no mention about the fact that doing so would limit them to a small corner of the overall market. I wonder now if that no-compromise approach is translating to the console version or not.
Total Annihilation was a phenomenon, but Supreme Commander just didn't catch people the same way, and I think the console market has far less tolerance for the hardcore RTS mentality that the game seems to promote. Honestly I don't anyone who played SupCom, pirated or not.
I loved Total Annihilation but I found SupCom to be dull. I haven't tried it with dual-monitors so maybe that will change my tune but otherwise it just kind of sucked.
CoH and C&C3 were both very good games. And I believe SC2 is going to destroy sales charts. I don't care if it can "re-capture" the magic, it will be a launch day sale for me.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
BFME2 pretty much tanked on the 360, C&C3 had a solid performance in the US.
"Chris Taylor: Once upon a time, maybe ten years ago, I might have said keyboard and mouse, too. That doesn't even come up in the darkest corners of my mind anymore. I could see a little touch screen like an iPhone on the middle of your joypad, but definitely not a keyboard and mouse. It's all about the beauty of having the traditional console type experience with a slight augmentation of an advanced control. It's gotta be robust. It's gotta be able to be kicked around on the floor. You can't have a tricky, complex gadget in the living room. It's gotta be able to take abuse. It's gotta be cheap, otherwise it won't catch on. We don't want to bring all of the baggage of the PC to the console."
I say too what about the 360 chatpad? I see a lot of hotkeys there perfect for a rts game.
Now playing a RTS with one of those new touch screens would absolutely rock, but i'm sure we're YEARS away before seeing a controller/console adapt to something like that.
Gamer Tag: Rantyr
I also think Supcom will flop. Already on gametrailers the comments from console fanboys are "omg whats that it looks like a ghey PC game" etc.
As much as I tried to like Supcom I couldn't get into it either. It has some killer features though that ultimately I would like in a better game. Ridiculous zoom out, multi monitor and no unit cap specifically but otherwise I found it to be a really bland "PC nerd" game. It reminded me of when I basically spent my entire birthday money on Outpost on the PC back in the day. It promised to be a NASA influenced Star Trek but cooler, scientific and the second coming of christ. However what I got was painfully droll, restricted to one planet (I think it was Mars) and sucked all the fun out of space colonisation. Your city also never looked anywhere near as cool as the box art either. I spent so much time trying to like it just because I was pissed at having spent the money. That's probably how I would have felt about SupCom had I bought it. I only know one guy that plays it and hes the worst PC zealot I know, the kind that treats all computers that are even slightly inferior to his as part of the "Plague" that PC developers cater to and are directly responsible for ruining his PC gaming experience. It also sounds like Chris was trying to zero in on that audience at the expense of everyone else so gee I wonder what happened
RTS' are probably the most graphically and physics... ly demanding games now since they moved to 3D. Especially as they close the gap with FPS' on the level of detail. With an FPS or RPG, you can closely control and predict your resource usage, especially movement via level pacing and how quickly the player can move through the level because you only need to display a relatively small area, fixed # of spawns, activity at a time. With an RTS however, the RAM is even more unusual because even with a unit cap you can have a massive battle going on, buttload of high res models and textures, shaders etc and especially with a game like Supcom where the unit numbers can get ridiculous and to accomodate that you need loads of RAM. The other thing with RTS' is map size. Both these things are going to be killers on the console. World in Conflict and Endwar with their more FPS style cameras will work in consoles' favor, although I still predict World in Conflict will have pop-in that will make Mass Effect look like 100fps
However on the PC, SupCom's main problem was being CPU bound which isn't going to be a problem with consoles. If anything there is some advantage to be had there. PCs already have gobs of ram both ways.
That's ok, Chris Taylor hasn't made a game I cared about in years. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis