On Shadowrun Pricing

Level Up has some answers they've received from Shane Kim of Microsoft Game Studios to their questions about Shadowrun, the now-gold Vista and Xbox 360 shooter. They asked why the PC edition of the game costs $10 less than the Xbox 360 edition, especially when MGS doesn't have to pay a console royalty, learning the Xbox 360 edition of the game costs more because, well, it costs more:
The $59.99 for Xbox 360 and $49.99 for Windows Vista price points are our standard pricing for each platform. This pricing structure is not uncommon in the multiplayer-only first-person shooter genre, as numerous titles have seen success at this price point and gaming model. I think it’s premature to speak to pricing for all future projects, but as of now this is our pricing structure for our marquee titles like Shadowrun. Additionally, MGS has the same development costs as other developers and publishers out there. One advantage other publishers have that we do not is that they can leverage their marketing and development costs over all platforms, while we are focused on Windows and Xbox 360 as a first party publisher.
View : : :
26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
26.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 22:26
26.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 22:26
May 15, 2007, 22:26
 
Who cares?!?!? this has been happening since the dawn of time. Games cost more on consoles - they always have and they always will.

Only slight justification for this I can come up with is licensing and dev kit costs for consoles... otherwise its a case of slightly cheaper prices for pcs as pirating is rampant?!?! If every game on pc (AAA titles that is) cost $20-$30 I wouldn't pirate a thing most likely!

25.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 22:13
Bet
 
25.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 22:13
May 15, 2007, 22:13
 Bet
 
there are plenty of ways to reduce "virtual clock speed".. plenty of ways around this if you know what you are doing

No kidding. Hence my initial argument of 24 year old games that "run perfectly" without any user intervention. I even referenced DOSBox in reference to the ones that don't run perfectly for crying out loud, which would be the ones without the "impeccable compatibility" I speak of. Hopefully you understand now.

The day Shadowrun hits the 48 hour special (96 hour? 118? who knows) at GoGamer it's ordered, probably to rest on a shelf until DX10 becomes a requirement for a monumental title like Alan Wake. The last time a situation like that occurred for me was when I bought a game on a CD and had no optical drive for close to a year. Man I hope Alan Wake is out before June 2008.

After playing Genesis Shadowrun again I know I have to support the first franchise entry in a decade, even if it is a bastardized version of the source material. Hell, the naysayers might be wrong and it could be fun even in the face of all adversity.

Avatar 9253
24.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 22:00
24.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 22:00
May 15, 2007, 22:00
 
Btw, I'd have no problem with Microsoft ditching compatibility, if that means we can also ditch the fucking archaic x86 architecture, and it's stupid limitations. (I guess it's more the BIOS that's to blame than anything else.)

15 IRQs my ass.

So if we would ever just say "Fuck it, let's start over", I'll be first in line to sign up. But instead, MS shits on compatibility for games (the only thing I really care about in the first place), but still keeps all their fucking security leaks and all the other stupid shit in place. Bah.

Creston

Avatar 15604
23.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 21:58
23.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 21:58
May 15, 2007, 21:58
 
Pick a game and it runs at lightspeed, even though we're still on x86 hardware

Which means what, exactly? I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just not sure what your point is. Modern day processors are 50,000 times faster than the 386 we ran that old crap on. Since it wasn't really conceivable back then that games could ever run into such an occurence, there was no such thing as a frame limiter. Especially for those games which were made to run under the 640k limit. (You might notice that more games that were made once the DOS Extender became commonplace have a limiter in place.)

Really the only old DOS Game I've ever still played is Ultima. I tried firing up Privateer a few years back, and it just looked too horrible for me to put up with. I guess I'm an Elitist Graphics Jerk.

Creston

Avatar 15604
22.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 16:20
22.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 16:20
May 15, 2007, 16:20
 
Anyways That's not hard at all to get running on XP.

Yeah but the travel map is all screwed up on faster PCs; you travel at light speed and never get random encounters.

21.
 
No subject
May 15, 2007, 14:10
21.
No subject May 15, 2007, 14:10
May 15, 2007, 14:10
 
Pick a game and it runs at lightspeed, even though we're still on x86 hardware.

there are plenty of ways to reduce "virtual clock speed".. plenty of ways around this if you know what you are doing

________________________
music from space captain:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/errantways_music.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/invisibleacropolis_music.htm
20.
 
Quitcher Bitchin
May 15, 2007, 12:42
20.
Quitcher Bitchin May 15, 2007, 12:42
May 15, 2007, 12:42
 
People really shouldn't be complaining about the prices of video games going up. I remember paying (or rather, my parents paying) about $70 for Super Mario Bros 3 a decade and a half ago. That next-gen games cost $60 today means only that we're paying much less for our games than we did a decade and a half ago.

19.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 11:51
19.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 11:51
May 15, 2007, 11:51
 
I don't know why fallout 2 was brought into it. It's not the oldest game out there. Anyways That's not hard at all to get running on XP.

18.
 
Re: No subject
May 15, 2007, 10:31
Bet
 
18.
Re: No subject May 15, 2007, 10:31
May 15, 2007, 10:31
 Bet
 
Yeah, and now? Pick a game and it runs at lightspeed, even though we're still on x86 hardware. The most common problem for all PC games really, even Fallout 2 suffers from it. And there are innumerable glitches with the majority of DOS games, which has taken a considerable effort on the part of the DOSBox team to work out, and they're still not done.

Avatar 9253
17.
 
No subject
May 15, 2007, 09:41
17.
No subject May 15, 2007, 09:41
May 15, 2007, 09:41
 
There are DOS games from 1983 you can load up right now in XP with any computer in the world and it will run perfectly because they were programmed with impeccable compatibility.

its not that they were programmed with "impeccable compatibility", its the fact that 90% of the PCs out there were IBMs with stock parts, and DOS was very low-level non-intrusive OS compared to modern windows... they were programmed for what they were, and it worked on everything because everything was the same

________________________
music from space captain:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/errantways_music.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/invisibleacropolis_music.htm
16.
 
No subject
May 15, 2007, 07:38
16.
No subject May 15, 2007, 07:38
May 15, 2007, 07:38
 
Whatever the market will bear...

15.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 05:38
15.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 05:38
May 15, 2007, 05:38
 
It would take having a substantial price cut on Vista for gamers to make most people get the game, since buying it and not being able to run it due to your operating system doesn't jive well with spending habits.

Amen to that.
This is the first time I can remember that Microsoft, directly after release of a new OS, dropped all backward compatibility with all other older OS's in their own games. They really must be desperate to get everyone on a pay to play model, like Live! is.

14.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 04:31
Bet
 
14.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 04:31
May 15, 2007, 04:31
 Bet
 
So how can developing for a machine with one hardware combination cost more than developing for thousands of computers with thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of hardware combinations?

You'd be amazed at how easy it is (relatively) to program a game to be compatible with EVERY hardware subset. There are DOS games from 1983 you can load up right now in XP with any computer in the world and it will run perfectly because they were programmed with impeccable compatibility.

Optimizing games, on the other hand, can take some work. That's when you start to get into hacks/workarounds and other tricks, or using specific features of hardware available. That is the sort of thing that breaks compatibility, and can cause headaches for people trying to port games from one system to another. The more hardware-specific tricks they use, the more incompatible it is.

With a fixed-spec hardware (consoles) it can take a lot of effort to get things running smoothly, with a PC you can just be told to upgrade (system requirements). Which is what Microsoft wants you to do to play this game, for example.


While a lower cost to PC gamers may lure some people indecisive of the wheter or not to buy it.

It would take having a substantial price cut on Vista for gamers to make most people get the game, since buying it and not being able to run it due to your operating system doesn't jive well with spending habits.

Considering the rape of the Shadowrun license in this game, maybe it's just as well I can't play the game on any of my computers. Will just have to plug in a gamepad and load up the classic versions of Shadowrun on Genesis/SNES emulators instead!

This comment was edited on May 15, 05:21.
Avatar 9253
13.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 03:44
13.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 03:44
May 15, 2007, 03:44
 
Don't forget how more gaming literate we are compared to console sales. A shitty PC game will end up in the bargin bin in no time. While a shitty console game with probably sell somewhat decently. We have a much larger library of games, Corporate, indie, abandonware, shareware, freeware. A lot more options for our gaming pleasure than Consoles. At least they have backwards compatibility and can play a game from 5 years ago, but we can usually get one running from 20 years ago.


I forgot my point.
A'hem. They'll have a better return rate in cash flow with 10 bucks more a sale. While a lower cost to PC gamers may lure some people indecisive of the wheter or not to buy it.
This comment was edited on May 15, 03:46.
12.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 02:57
12.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 02:57
May 15, 2007, 02:57
 
All console games are always at least 10 bucks higher than PC games. All games are still drastically overpriced though.


Boss Paul Vitti: I can feel the juices rushing back to my balls as we speak.
Dr. Ben Sobel: Well, that's something I never thought I'd hear another man say to me.
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
11.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 01:53
11.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 01:53
May 15, 2007, 01:53
 
So how can developing for a machine with one hardware combination cost more than developing for thousands of computers with thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of hardware combinations?

You have to buy dev kits and licenses to work on console games.

Avatar 20715
10.
 
$60
May 15, 2007, 01:30
10.
$60 May 15, 2007, 01:30
May 15, 2007, 01:30
 
Greedy Microsoft rat bastards.

9.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 01:11
9.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 01:11
May 15, 2007, 01:11
 
In most cases they do cost more to develop, nobody on our end is gonna like it, but it was bound to happen.

Now that's something I've always wondered about, console games being more expensive than their PC counterparts.
I mean seriously, on a console you have ONE piece of hardware to develop for. On a PC you have to develop on several different machines, with various different parts, just to make sure the game will run right on maybe 50% of the machine combinations out there. So how can developing for a machine with one hardware combination cost more than developing for thousands of computers with thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of hardware combinations?

8.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 15, 2007, 00:07
8.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 15, 2007, 00:07
May 15, 2007, 00:07
 
It wouldnt be so bad if there was some sort of decent single player story driven part of this game. Then 60 bucks would be ok.

Although, if you give us just a multiplayer game and thats it, the price should only be about 30 or 40 bucks. Especially, with all the money they saved in NOT making a single player component.

7.
 
Re: Why are people bitching about this?
May 14, 2007, 23:44
7.
Re: Why are people bitching about this? May 14, 2007, 23:44
May 14, 2007, 23:44
 
I remember how at the 360 launch, MS games were $10 cheaper than 3rd party games. I also remember how this trend was supposed to continue. "We're greedy bastards" indeed.

26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older