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

Regularly scheduled events

Weisman: MS "Destroyed" FASA Dev Culture

FASA Interactive founder Jordan Weisman says "When Microsoft bought FASA Interactive and incorporated it into Microsoft... the two reasons they bought us was, one, they wanted the catalogue of intellectual properties and, two, they felt that we had developed a really good development culture. And the reality is that, pretty much from the day we moved to Redmond, that development culture was destroyed," according to a new report on GamesIndustry.biz. FASA was acquired in 1999 and closed in 2007, and Weisman says: "I don't think the studio ever really had a chance. It was destroyed right in the beginning." He also describes his efforts at warning MS against destroying Bungie in the same manner, saying, "We were much better able to defend Bungie's culture than we were FASA's culture." Looking forward he repeats his eagerness to work with Piranha Games on the recently revealed MechWarrior revival and just yesterday it was announced his new company Smith & Tinker has raised $29 million USD for development of Pokemon-style games.

View
178 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 5.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >

98. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 11:38 Beamer
 
XBox is still the demarcation line for the PC developer migration.

It's when it finally took off. But it started before. Nothing happens overnight. No dev adopted Xbox overnight. They all dabbled first to test the market. That testing started before the Xbox was released.

You say Raven started with the Xbox. No, they didn't. Soldier of Fortune came out on the DC and PS2. Bioware and id also started with those two consoles. Yes, some of these were afterthoughts, but they were done to test the market. When the afterthoughts made significant amounts of money (well, not for Valve), the developers suddenly looked at the consoles in a new light.

And right when they started realizing they could make real money there the Xbox came out, with Microsoft promoting it and with a coding architecture similar to what they were used to.

But they were considering the move before that happened.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
97. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 11:34 Wowbagger_TIP
 
They have a product already, they decided it was worth the cash that it would take to port it over to another platform and release it there two years after the original. They obviously didn't design the game for the console, and they only turned their attention to it after they had released for the PC. Only after the XBox came out did they start developing for both platforms at once. Id didn't even do that much and just paid someone else to do the port. Raven didn't start doing console games until the XBox came out. Got any examples of devs switching before the XBox was released? Seems like there's not even one good example, let alone enough to say that it was the beginning of the migration that we've seen.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2009, 11:35.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 28, 2009, 11:29 Verno
 
Jerykk was talking about that is more of an afterthought to make some extra cash than anything else

I don't see how any of you can claim that without something to back it up. When I see a company entering a new market, that's called testing the waters, not an afterthought. An afterthought is something like "Oh well geez I guess I'll have a coke with my sandwich", not "hey lets release a product somewhere we never have before just for kicks and bling guyz".
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 11:20 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Take your typical gamer. He's a guy, in his 20s. He owns a laptop which is good enough for work but not for gaming. He enjoys using it to surf the web while sitting in front of the TV. It really covers all his computing needs, but not his gaming needs. He wants to play Modern Warfare 2 and no way can his laptop touch that.

I think you're over-generalizing a bit here, as I've helped others build gaming PCs before (I guess I would be that PC gamer friend from the fantasy football league). I just tell them what to buy, and sometimes have helped put it together. Often they just need a better vid card and maybe some extra RAM. But all in all, I agree that it's easier to buy a console, assuming that's the kind of gaming you like.

PC gamers either buy a PC that can play games or they build one (perhaps with help), or they aren't PC gamers. It's pretty much that simple.

The main things that make me prefer PC games, aside from the fact that I like strategy games like Sins and SupCom, is the vast amount of mod support and fixes out there. Games like Oblivion and Fallout3 would have been a complete waste of money for me on a console, as they sucked out of the box, but can be made awesome with mods. Then there's all those smaller niche games that I love that would likely never see the light of day on a console.


Edit: fixed typo
Edit: added last paragraph

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2009, 11:30.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 11:15 Wowbagger_TIP
 
I already pointed to several developers that started making the switch then.
Raven started putting out console games with the XBox. Valve released Half-Life for Dreamcast, but it was the sort of port that Jerykk was talking about that is more of an afterthought to make some extra cash than anything else. The kind of port that comes a year or two after the original release. Id farmed out console ports to GearBox for PS2 and Dreamcast. These were also released well after the PC versions. XBox is still the demarcation line for the PC developer migration.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 10:57 Beamer
 
Also, before Jerykk comes in and says "the PC as a platform has no inherent fatal flaws," allow me to point out why the PC has lost out major market share to consoles:

Take your typical gamer. He's a guy, in his 20s. He owns a laptop which is good enough for work but not for gaming. He enjoys using it to surf the web while sitting in front of the TV. It really covers all his computing needs, but not his gaming needs. He wants to play Modern Warfare 2 and no way can his laptop touch that.

He looks at Dell and HP. He can't figure out which is best, and both have great deals. He asks a PC gamer in his fantasy football league which he should buy. The guy, typical PC gamer, tells him only morons buy PCs and real men build it. In fairness he's a bit right here, as Dell and HP have really stopped carrying PCs that can game worth a damn and those that can they never give coupons for.

So he goes to newegg. He figures it'll be easy, last time he bought a new desktop he went from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 and just got the highest clock speed he could afford. Now he's looking at Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad and i7. Is a Core 2 Duo at 3 Ghz faster than a Core 2 Quad at 2.66? He has no clue. And then there's AMD, offering tons of quad choices. So he decides to start instead with graphics cards. There's a 9800 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ and 9800 GTX2. Are any of these worth the change in price? The 9800 GT and 9800 GTX+ seem to be around the same price. But they're also the same price as the GTS 250. And then there's ATI to worry about. And didn't he have a 9800 Pro back in his college days?

So he needs more help. He googles benchmarks, gets a few dozen sites, none of which really come to any good conclusion. Some games run faster on some chips. Some games run faster on quad. Some run faster on duo. Some run faster on one new GPU some run faster on 2 older GPUs.

Desperate, he asks the guy across the hall for help. Too many numbers, too many incoherent naming schemes, he's just lost. The guy across the hall shakes his head and takes him to Best Buy. $300 and 10 minutes later he's playing Modern Warfare 2 online, on an Xbox or PS3, against the guy across the hall and some old college buddies. There's no worries about what this system can and can't run. There are no worries about ever needing to upgrade. For the cost of the GPU and CPU, if not cheaper, he can run any game he wants. No hassle. And he didn't need to dedicate part of his apartment to it - he just put it next to the DVD player and cable box. No huge monitor and huge tower sitting noisily in his bedroom, mostly untouched because he does all his home computing in front of the TV.

This is your typical gamer, or a common variation.
Doesn't have the time or the interest to tinker with the PC.
Doesn't own a desktop and has no interest in ever doing so. A total lap computer user.
Gets lost in the awful naming schemes all the hardware manufacturers have switched to (Intel got it right sticking with Pentium so long, even if we mocked them for having "5" forever.)
Just wants to play games and not worry.



Also, before anyone says "well, he needs to buy an HDTV, which costs as much as a desktop," no. No he does not. He already has one or has interest in one. It's a lot sexier than a computer in the corner of his room and will get more use, and certainly impress his friends more. And if he can't afford it no big deal, as the console works just fine without it.


But what the hardest of the hardcore PC users enjoy - the flexibility, the variability, the fact that it makes you feel like you know something, is what scares everyone else away and into the easy, loving arms of a console.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 28, 2009, 10:45 Verno
 
all of this is using money to make companies do things they would ususally not do.

Companies don't usually try to make as much money as they can? I'm sure that's news to the vast majority of businesses in the world.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 10:37 Beamer
 
a bribe is illegal if applied to jurors or public servants, but not in business.

I don't know where you guys are getting this from but a bribe is certainly illegal in businesses. Which is why I keep telling you not to use that word.

If I pay a doctor to prescribe my drug over any other, I've committed bribery and I can be punished by law. Bribery implies a public good. PUBLIC GOOD IS NOT INVOLVED HERE.
Maybe the problem is only a handful of us here are lawyers.


 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 10:19 MacD
 
immorral != illegal is the point he's trying to make.

Paying Bungie NOT to make Halo available on the pc, purely in order to sell xboxes, paying companies to release exclusively on their own console, forcing devs to charge money for DLC which they wanted to give away for free (ask EPIC 'bout this one, among others)...all of this is using money to make companies do things they would ususally not do.

Money for a behaviour change...not illegal, but the word 'bribe' does seem to fit, especially since (according to the definitions given above) a bribe is illegal if applied to jurors or public servants, but not in business. Unless one is engaged in cartel-like-behaviour.

Point being: the word 'bribe' does fit the actions quite nicely here.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 09:30 Beamer
 
PS2 came out years before the Xbox and had a much larger install base but no PC developers made the

I already pointed to several developers that started making the switch then.
It wasn't overnight. It wasn't overnight with the Xbox. They started slowly.



I don't understand you. I don't get why your world needs a villain. I don't get why you can't simply admit that PC gaming has inherent flaws, some of which were once strengths, that pushed developers away from it to vastly greener grass.

Jerykk, I've said this before, but if you own a company that makes a widget and sells to a userbase of 100,000 people, then suddenly find out that, with some slight modifications, you can instead sell to a userbase of 1,000,000, wouldn't you do it? And if you're then given the option of developing a new widget to sell to that base or refining the widget to the old 100,000, where would you put your investment?
It's simple business. There is no evil here. No one is sitting there thinking "Gee, what can I do today to make Jerykk cry? Should I run over his dog? No, I'll ruin his game fun!" NO ONE. There is no conspiracy. There is no "man" keeping you down. It's just that console gaming grew exponentially in userbase and user maturity to the point that PC developers could, with very minor changes, hit them and make far more profit. We're in the middle of the biggest recession in nearly 100 years and most video game companies are still doing just fine because they're hitting such a huge, diverse audience now. They did not have that with PCs.

Why is this so hard for you?
Why must you keep fighting it?
Why must you look for someone to blame instead of just blaming the platform for simply not being user friendly enough? (incidentally the same reason Linux never took off.)
Why can't you admit that Microsoft was a catalyst that simply sped up a reaction certain to happen?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
88. Re: MS Aug 28, 2009, 08:40 Verno
 
Go back and read post 50. Here are a few of your non-justifications:

Nothing wrong or illegal about doing this.
They start with it as a base and port to other platforms, the 360 makes them the most money. It's called business.
So? They make a console easy to develop for. The horror.

But that's just stating facts according to you. Nothing wrong with facts, right?

Uh, input technology? You mean gimmicky motion controls? Yeah, I'm sure that'll spark an RTS and MMO revolution on consoles. Just look at all the RTS and MMO games on the Wii...

It's hard to believe you not only thought this but then also posted it. 10 years ago I bet you were the retard saying Goldeneye was a gimmick and that FPS games could never work on consoles. Then there's the Wii itself, yeah a glorified gamecube sure can power all of those RTS and MMO games Rolleyes

Shooters and western RPGs were PC-centric genres. When you thought of either, you thought of the PC. After the Xbox, came out, these genres became console genres. I'm not saying it's wrong or evil or unjustified or whatever.

Yeah you are, stop bullshitting around. You've said the very words "I hate Microsoft" so please forgive the rest of us if we don't think you're the objective third party you claim to be.

Sigh. I don't know how else I can say this. PS2 had internet support. Dreamcast had internet support. PC developers didn't care about either. Why? Here's why:

Yeah they cared, stop lying. People started making games for consoles and it started becoming a serious business instead of something they did for extra cash. The Xbox certainly sped up the process but it began far before it arrived.

You were the one who brought the random numbers into the argument. I never said MS was 100% responsible for the state of the industry. I said that they've had a huge impact on it and this is undeniably true.

More bullshit. You've claimed in the past it is literally Microsoft's fault and you are purposely trying to avoid putting blame anywhere else so that people will focus on Microsoft. Not on the PS2 where internet and the console finally married. Not on the Dreamcast where some of the first real PC FPS games arrived.

Once again, for the millionth time, this has NOTHING to do with intent. I don't care if you think Microsoft justified in its actions or whether they were malicious. That's completely irrelevant to this argument. (intentionally or not) and all the facts support this. You have no facts to support your position. Seriously, name one.

And you have no facts to support your position either. I think you are confusing your opinions and conclusions on past events with factual knowledge. It's no real surprise because we know you love the jump to conclusions game but it's still unintelligent nonetheless.

This argument is whether or not the creation of the Xbox severely hurt PC gaming

No it isn't. Everyone knows consoles becoming popular hurt PC gaming. Everyone knows that developers moving to consoles in general hurt PC gaming. There would be no topic if it was about that because everything has been said a hundred times already. It's about blame, you're all about blame and this attempt to gloss over your own indignity is transparent and boring.

How many PC developers became PS2 or Gamecube developers? How many PC developers became Wii developers? How many PC developers have become PS3 developers (developing for PS3 as the lead platform, not a 360 port)?

I have no idea, I doubt you do either. I can sit here all day asking irrelevant questions that I don't know the answer to but that would make me no better than you and has nothing to do with the debate.

Again, why do any publishers still bother making PC exclusives? Consoles are where the most money is at, right? Two words: Proven Market. RTS and MMOs aren't proven in the console market. FPS and western RPGs are. Coincidentally, those two genres weren't proven in the console market until the Xbox came out. PS2 came out years before the Xbox and had a much larger install base but no PC developers made the switch. Then Halo 1&2 come out for the Xbox (not PS2) and sell over 10 million units. Boom, FPS becomes a console genre. Then KOTOR, Fable and Oblivion come out on the Xbox and/or 360 and sell millions. Boom, WRPG becomes a console genre. But hey, it's all just a coincidence. All these games would have inevitably come out for the Playstation, Gamecube or Wii anyway since PC developers have proven so eager to support them.

That's a nice song and dance that conveniently avoids answering the question at all. Answer the question asked if you can. If you can't then at least have the sack to admit it.

So there's no way these greedy people would ever have decided to make more money without the Xbox?

Answer it directly without some bullshit subject changing. Do it or forever hold your peace because your entire argument rests on the crux of it. If the Xbox never existed then PC gaming would be fine and dandy because there's no possible way PC devs would ever look to the cash-printing console market to make money, RIGHT? Can even you make that claim with a straight face? I hope there's some depths of ridiculousness that even you wouldn't plumb.

Because they weren't shifting at all. Porting PC games to a console = trying to make some extra money, same reason that console games are ported to the PC. Ports have been around since the SNES and the vast majority were outsourced. Nobody really cared about ports.

I'm sorry, were you employed there? Did you work at every company involved and personally know that what they had planned for the future? This is what I'm talking about, your little jump to conclusions game. These people started testing the waters before the Xbox, how can you claim to know intent and state it as a fact without even having any firsthand knowledge? I find it hard to believe you worked for id software, Bioware, Lionhead and etc all at the same time.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2009, 08:53.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
87. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 28, 2009, 06:56 The PC Warrior
 
Valve have made overtures about being bought out one day, I assume that's why people bring it up. It's not terribly far fetched when you hear it from the company itself.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
86. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 28, 2009, 06:16 StingingVelvet
 
Why does "buying Valve" get mentioned ALL the time when Valve is privately owned? I constantly hear the panicked cries of PC gamers about Valve possibly being bought, but Valve can only be bought if they choose to be, like id just did.  
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
85. Re: MS Aug 27, 2009, 23:55 Jerykk
 
Obviously I don't since I don't offer any justification anywhere in my posts.

Go back and read post 50. Here are a few of your non-justifications:

Nothing wrong or illegal about doing this.
They start with it as a base and port to other platforms, the 360 makes them the most money. It's called business.
So? They make a console easy to develop for. The horror.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that input technology on consoles is just now catching up to the point where MMO and RTS games are finally possible.

Uh, input technology? You mean gimmicky motion controls? Yeah, I'm sure that'll spark an RTS and MMO revolution on consoles. Just look at all the RTS and MMO games on the Wii...

Shooters and RPGs are not the only genres in the universe, just the ones you happen to care about.

Shooters and western RPGs were PC-centric genres. When you thought of either, you thought of the PC. After the Xbox, came out, these genres became console genres. I'm not saying it's wrong or evil or unjustified or whatever. I'm just stating the facts.

But they did it. Using your logic they made it possible for consoles to break through with internet technology.

Sigh. I don't know how else I can say this. PS2 had internet support. Dreamcast had internet support. PC developers didn't care about either. Why? Here's why:

1) Neither the Dreamcast nor the PS2 were particularly familiar to PC developers.
2) Sega and Sony have never provided much incentive for PC developers to become console developers.

Conversely, the Xbox was very familiar to to PC developers and MS went out of their way to get PC developers to develop for it. What's so difficult to understand about this?

Well if we're just making up numbers in thin air and pretending they have meaning then I think the US is 64.217% responsible for the world's economic crisis.

You were the one who brought the random numbers into the argument. I never said MS was 100% responsible for the state of the industry. I said that they've had a huge impact on it and this is undeniably true.

No, that's what you derived, I said this situation would've happened down the road no matter what. The ball was rolling before Microsoft got involved. They certainly pushed it along but they didn't take aim at PC gaming, they took aim at talented companies who happened to be making PC games. It's an important distinction, one implies malicious intent and the other doesn't.

Once again, for the millionth time, this has NOTHING to do with intent. I don't care if you think Microsoft justified in its actions or whether they were malicious. That's completely irrelevant to this argument. This argument is whether or not the creation of the Xbox severely hurt PC gaming (intentionally or not) and all the facts support this. You have no facts to support your position. Seriously, name one. How many PC developers became PS2 or Gamecube developers? How many PC developers became Wii developers? How many PC developers have become PS3 developers (developing for PS3 as the lead platform, not a 360 port)?

I don't know as I'm not the one trying to blame Microsoft for all of the world's woes. And stop trying to change the subject. You claim none of this would've happened if Microsoft hadn't been the catalyst, right? For the record you said it in exactly those words. So developers who went to Microsoft to make more money, they get absolved from blame because nothing wrong with making money right? They get a pass for "selling out" because Jerykk wants to hate Microsoft. So there's no way these greedy people would ever have decided to make more money without the Xbox? Pretty ass backwards logic.

Sigh. Once again, this has nothing to do with intent. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, nothing to do with legality or justification. Just facts. Step back a moment and look at the facts. Look at PC gaming before and after the Xbox. The creation of the Xbox hurt PC gaming in many ways. Had the Xbox not been created, things would be very different. And yes, developers had a choice. However, Microsoft created that choice in the first place. Had they not created the Xbox and not provided extra incentive to publishers and developers, these choices wouldn't have been available. PC developers would have had to go with either Nintendo or Sony and neither party would have provided the same incentives that Microsoft did.

And you STILL have not provided an answer to where the rest of the industry is.

I really don't understand why you bring this up in every argument about Microsoft. Who cares what other publishers and developers are doing to help PC gaming? It's completely irrelevant to this debate. The question here is what has Microsoft done to hurt PC gaming and the answer is "It created the Xbox." Well, actually, Microsoft also created Vista, DX10, GfWL, etc, but the Xbox was by far the most significant blow to PC gaming.

So there's no way these greedy people would ever have decided to make more money without the Xbox?

Again, why do any publishers still bother making PC exclusives? Consoles are where the most money is at, right? Two words: Proven Market. RTS and MMOs aren't proven in the console market. FPS and western RPGs are. Coincidentally, those two genres weren't proven in the console market until the Xbox came out. PS2 came out years before the Xbox and had a much larger install base but no PC developers made the switch. Then Halo 1&2 come out for the Xbox (not PS2) and sell over 10 million units. Boom, FPS becomes a console genre. Then KOTOR, Fable and Oblivion come out on the Xbox and/or 360 and sell millions. Boom, WRPG becomes a console genre. But hey, it's all just a coincidence. All these games would have inevitably come out for the Playstation, Gamecube or Wii anyway since PC developers have proven so eager to support them.

Microsoft could afford to buy EA/Ubi/Valve.

If MS could afford to buy all the major publishers, why wouldn't they? After all, it's very, very clear that MS wants every game to be a 360 exclusive. If your game is getting published by Microsoft, it'll be a 360 exclusive. MS goes out of their way to hurt the competition. They paid Rockstar $50 million for GTA4 DLC exclusivity on the 360.

It could demand that partners are not allowed to release PC products if they want to make 360 ones.

That's why Fable 2, Gears of War 2, Alan Wake, Halo Wars and pretty much any game published by Microsoft isn't coming out on the PC.

id and Valve started making console games with the Dreamcast, before the Xbox was announced. Raven started with the DC and PS2. Bioware also started with the DC and PS2. How can we blame Microsoft when all these companies started shifting before the Xbox?

Because they weren't shifting at all. Porting PC games to a console = trying to make some extra money, same reason that console games are ported to the PC. Ports have been around since the SNES and the vast majority were outsourced. Nobody really cared about ports. However, when the Xbox came out, PC developers actually shifted to console development. It was no longer an afterthought but the focus. This is why we can blame Microsoft.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2009, 05:04.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
84. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 27, 2009, 23:02 StingingVelvet
 
Again I'll have to disagree here, I thought Fallout 3 was one of the best examples of a developer not compromising design goals for consoles.

I loved FO3, but I think it certainly would have been a much different game it was designed for the PC and only the PC from the ground up. A much different game in ways I would have very much enjoyed.

I agree Bethesda is on the better side of the PC devs gone console movement in a lot of ways though. Also, I think they learned a lesson with Oblivion, which is surprising given it was universally praised and sold well. They're looking for a middle ground between Morrowind and Oblivion and FO3 was closer to it than I would have expected.

Still, Morrowind is without a doubt a better game for what traditional PC gamers want from an RPG.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 27, 2009, 19:21 The PC Warrior
 
The PS3 has played catch up and offers similar things this generation, but even that might have been delayed if not for the Xbox doing it the generation before. One could even say one of the many factors making PS3 stay in third place is gamers tastes have changed to what the Xbox brought to the console gaming scene.

Certainly a possibility but I think the PS3's main disadvantages were caused by internal incompetence at Sony more than anything else. They finally seem to be wising up but the PS3 is three years old already now and they have a long ways to go. If you look back 5 years ago, who would have predicted that the Xbox360 would be the JRPG system? I certainly agree that Microsoft's success has turned on the industry on it's head.

Anyway, this is all rambling... we all agree the Xbox either caused or sped up the movement of PC gaming to consoles. We all agree this has increased the mainstreaming of games in our genres. We all agree mainstreaming of our genres is a bad thing for deep stories and complex gameplay.

I get what you're saying but I don't really agree. I think we'll see emergent gameplay from the console industry, there are too many PC devs in there now and they all game like we do. It's like that old directors saying: you make two for the studio then one for yourself. Many of the great PC devs have only made one or two games for consoles right now but seeing things like Alpha Protocol gives me hope.

And I don't mean sucks because console gamers get to play Fallout 3, it sucks because of Bethesda choosing to make the game more mass market friendly to gain more of that audience

Again I'll have to disagree here, I thought Fallout 3 was one of the best examples of a developer not compromising design goals for consoles.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: MS Aug 27, 2009, 18:50 StingingVelvet
 
Claiming it didn't happen before the Xbox is wrong. It started before the Xbox, I remember seeing even a Final Fantasy MMO for the PS2 back in the day(FF11 I think?). Beamer's essentially correct, the main thing holding people back were technology barriers more than anything else. Microsoft certainly didn't do any good but saying it's Microsoft's fault is simply looking to paint a villain for your outrage. It would have happened no matter what. Piracy was increasing, console technology was finally catching up and the lucrative console market wouldn't be ignored forever.

I agree it would have happened eventually, I was just saying it would have been very delayed if not for the Xbox.

As said, PC games were ported to even the SNES, it did indeed happen, but they were not as accepted there until the Xbox. Half Life was on the PS2 and no one cared, No One Lives Forever was on the PS2 and no one cared. It was the Xbox, for whatever reason, that captured the essence of PC games on a console system.

The PS3 has played catch up and offers similar things this generation, but even that might have been delayed if not for the Xbox doing it the generation before. One could even say one of the many factors making PS3 stay in third place is gamers tastes have changed to what the Xbox brought to the console gaming scene.

Anyway, this is all rambling... we all agree the Xbox either caused or sped up the movement of PC gaming to consoles. We all agree this has increased the mainstreaming of games in our genres. We all agree mainstreaming of our genres is a bad thing for deep stories and complex gameplay.

I agree it was inevitable, it just still sucks.

And I don't mean sucks because console gamers get to play Fallout 3, it sucks because of Bethesda choosing to make the game more mass market friendly to gain more of that audience... and I agree they should not feel bad about wanting to make money.

It still just sucks though! Lol.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 27, 2009, 18:22 The PC Warrior
 
Claiming it didn't happen before the Xbox is wrong. It started before the Xbox, I remember seeing even a Final Fantasy MMO for the PS2 back in the day(FF11 I think?). Beamer's essentially correct, the main thing holding people back were technology barriers more than anything else. Microsoft certainly didn't do any good but saying it's Microsoft's fault is simply looking to paint a villain for your outrage. It would have happened no matter what. Piracy was increasing, console technology was finally catching up and the lucrative console market wouldn't be ignored forever.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: MS Aug 27, 2009, 18:13 Beamer
 
A game like Morrowind would never have been released on console before that system came out, and without someone else joining Sony and Nintendo, it probably wouldn't have then or even soon after. That is Jeryks point...

But that's simply not true.
A game like Morrowind needs a certain amount of power and certain kind of control in order to work.
That kind of power and control hit the consoles in the previous generation. Microsoft also hit consoles that generation. Is there a connection there? No! Microsoft may have sped it up but this was something already starting and certain to continue. Once we got analog sticks and powerful hardware it was going to happen. It had already started.

Microsoft sped it up by adding:
1) A western company to deal with that already had established relationships with PC developers.
2) Off-the-shelf hardware (which Nintendo certainly jumped all over.)
3) Incentive to encourage western game development.

But if Microsoft had stayed out of it we'd still be having this discussion, albeit perhaps 3 or 4 years from now.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 27, 2009, 18:02 The PC Warrior
 
But no, I guess it isn't wrong of them, morally. Again, it just SUCKS.

We seem to be the same sort of gamer in terms of mentality but I have to disagree with you on the last point. I don't think it sucks personally, I think it's fine for console gamers to be able to play our titles. I think what really sucks is that the money is so much better over there that people don't seem to care about making quality PC experiences anymore. We can all argue all night about this but really it comes down to money and consoles make more of it for the type of gaming we like to do.

It's hard for me as a PC gamer because I really want more great games that I remember from years past but it's also hard as a working adult with a job to get mad at someone for just wanting to make money. It'd be like someone walking into my office and telling me to stop working on something because they want a different product. It's a crappy situation.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
178 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 5.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo