Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

47. Re: Out of the Blue Aug 13, 2013, 21:09 Rigs
Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 13:00:
Rigs wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 12:52:
Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 12:30:
Cutter wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 11:03:
Well what's the only game they didn't port? RDR? It's never really been a question of it coming to the PC so much as when.

And RDR may be a fluke. That was one of the most troubled development cycles to actually manage to release a game. The general consensus around the industry was that the entire studio was going to collapse. Instead they released a moody, atmospheric blockbuster, but it seems that it may have all come together at the last second.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rockstar was caught off-guard by RDRs success and really had plans to move away from it as quickly as possible. It may explain why we've heard zilch from that studio, too - I really think they were in limbo at release and Rockstar ended up very delicately trying to figure out how to fix their massive flaws without ruining whatever it was that made RDR great.

So they wait years to figure out if RDR is a hit and then consider it for release on PC? I find that scenario hard to believe. As has been pointed out by me, and others, Rockstar is out to make money. It makes no sense not to release RDR unless there's a financial reason. And in my opinion, that reason is to feed the 'fear' that Rockstar might not release every game to the PC, thus building their sales on console releases. This way they get the most from the consoles, then get the most from PC buyers and some double-dippers. What could be better than that? (Financially, anyway) RDR may come out later down the line, but I doubt it. There's really nothing about RDR that would make it uniquely difficult to bring to PC. It's certainly not any different from say, LA Noire, which I would think would be much harder to port, given it's various technologies. RDR is basically GTA in the wild west. The only logical reason for them not to release it would be financial not technical.


There was a financial reason - they didn't expect the game to do well and, more importantly, didn't think they could take a single person off of the development of the console version to put them on any form of PC port. PC ports aren't free - they cost money. And they require someone to perform them. Even if they're done by a different studio, you still have to have some of your engineers working on the engine and providing support to the external team. And everyone else on the team needs to be available to answer questions. And a producer from the original is probably overseeing the port.
Go reread all the "Rockstar Spouse" reports and tell me if they sound as if they could have spared this. And, when Rockstar seemed to think this would be a failure, hell, basically the entire industry expected this to be the next Trespasser or Daikatana, why would you spend a dime to port it?

Your "fear" argument makes little sense.

Holy shit, Beamer, did you even READ what I said? All of it?!

Rigs wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 12:52:
The only logical reason for them not to release it would be financial not technical.

Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2013, 12:30:
There was a financial reason


Either I'm stupid or you just re-enforced what I just said...


This comment was edited on Aug 13, 2013, 21:31.
Avatar 14292
'Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to Hell because that is exactly where we're going!'
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo