Support NeoGAF

Goldenroad · Apr 1, 2015

Who benefits exactly from a game being PC exclusive?

I'm seriously asking. I mean I get how MS benefits from having an XBOX exclusive or Nintendo benefits from having a Wii U exclusive, since they are focused on selling hardware as well, but who does a PC exclusive help? I mean, maybe Alienware or HP or Lenovo should fund some games to help them move hardware, but other than Valve, who do produce their own games (and still release most of them on other platforms), I don't get why a company would put an insane amount of resources into a product that is going to hit such a small segment of the whole video gaming market, other than of course specific genres designed for KB&M.

Inuhanyou · Apr 1, 2015

funkypie said:
I think my point was more of taking advantage of what pc can offer rather than restricting other from playing.

Your question was already answered right here OP

RedSwirl said:
The cost of making a game with graphics that stress the PlayStation and Xbox is high enough. Imagine the cost of making a game with graphics that push modern $400 GPUs. This is why you really only see them in genres that don't work on consoles: strategy games, MOBAs, some MMOs, etc.

Devs are absolutely targeting the baseline they can achieve on the console specs(probably XB1) and giving extra bells and whistles to anything above that baseline.

As the post rightly points out, the PS4 and XB1's components are weak as hell compared to current high end components, and devs are already having a hard time managing their budgets, hell they did with the 7th gen consoles, which is why we are here to begin with.

Its absolutely ridiculous to think that devs would spend the budget on making games that cater specifically to high end HW, when they can barely get by on taking advantage of below midrange HW. That's to say nothing of where you think the actual sales will come from. PC gamers by themselves on steam are going to support that budget?

BibiMaghoo · Apr 1, 2015

PANTHEON said:
What's the confusion?

Your choice of phrasing. I don't disagree that piracy plays a part as I said in the post you just quoted. However, you just suggested that PC users are all pirate scum or few in number, because a PC better than a PS4 is more expensive and less streamlined.

That stumbled me somewhat.

laughingmood · Apr 1, 2015

Steam sales happened

Inuhanyou · Apr 1, 2015

UnrealEck said:
Console games age too and with that, they also see price reductions. On top of that, you can buy them second hand.

Yep. Due to retail price drops and used game prices, i have tons of games i otherwise would not have. Then again, that takes put a wrench in the argument that console gaming is inherently more expensive than PC gaming, because we are expected to buy games day 1 for 60 dollars(i can't do that every time!)

Gully State said:
The PC gamer that bought the game a year after release for $5 at least generated revenue for the developer compared to the console gamer that bought the game a year after release used or on clearance for $20 (neither of which goes back to the company that made the game).

But on the other hand, we console gamers also have digital downloads that go back to the developer, especially with the great PSN sales. If i didn't know any better, i'd say Atlus made all their money off of those damn sales, they have so many of them(they've made me run out of HDD space multiple times, the bastards)

Fafalada · Apr 1, 2015

Mandoric said:
MMOs and F2P can easily be AAA from a budgetary standpoint.

Some are. When you have games with 100-200 man-teams that live on for 5+ years, even before marketing the budgets reach very big numbers. And something like LoL where 1000+ people is effectively supporting a single game is of course on the level of absurdity - again, before marketing expenses.
Although the cost-structure tends to be a lot different too, with "core-game" being only a small part of the whole machine.

Crayon · Apr 1, 2015

It makes perfect sense to me. Console users eatup heavily marketed releases. When you can get a deal that bolsters the marketing effort, it can make sense to leave the multi platform sales on the table.

Pc exclusive still makes sense for releases with limited resources, a big aaa effort will likely come out any viable platform.

Im lookin at building my first pc in a long time this year. I personally dont plan on it being much more powerful than a ps4. The games im attracted to on the steam side of the fence are not vig budget graphically intensive games. Ive been a console gamer for a long time and ive always been well served in that arena. Im drawn to steam for the great non-aaa games that never make it to playstation.

Lasthope106 · Apr 1, 2015

Inuhanyou said:
Yep. Due to retail price drops and used game prices, i have tons of games i otherwise would not have. Then again, that takes put a wrench in the argument that console gaming is inherently more expensive than PC gaming, because we are expected to buy games day 1 for 60 dollars(i can't do that every time!)

But on the other hand, we console gamers also have digital downloads that go back to the developer, especially with the great PSN sales. If i didn't know any better, i'd say Atlus made all their money off of those damn sales, they have so many of them(they've made me run out of HDD space multiple times, the bastards)

You can thank Steam and pc gamers, for Sony adopting that approach.

ALLseeingEYE · Apr 1, 2015

HK-47 said:
Pillars of Eternity was funded on around 4-5 million dollars. If you think PoE was an AAA game you dont understand the term.

Well, POE raised 4-5 million of kickstarter, and unless I'm mistaken and they announced the full budget, it's very possible that Paradox and Obsidian further funded development.

Having said that, the actual amount of money spent shouldn't be the defining factor for AAA. Gears of War was developed for $10,000,000, and that was certainly AAA. The Witcher 2 was also apparently 10+ million. Both of those games, when released, were AAA in every way that matters. Visuals, Audio, feature set. They both easily competed with everything on the market. That's what PC games need though, AAA production values, achieved in incredibly intelligent ways that are viable for the platform. Perhaps devs could achieve it by using more and more procedural asset creation, or purchasing re-usable art assets ala the Unreal or Unity stores.

Is POE AAA? judging by screens, it certainly seems to be. Does it feel cheaply made? The Witcher 2 and 3 are certainly AAA, Star Citizen is AAA. I would probably also even consider Arma III and Total War series AAA. I think what people are looking for, is not games that cost a certain amount to develop, but games that visually and technologically push the PC hardware. There are a lot of PC games that continue to do this, but I couldn't see there being many, if any games that always push top-tier graphics cards in any way other than max settings. There's no point in dropping insane amounts of money to impress a small demographic unless they could make it financially viable, such as with how Star Citizen achieved it.

Archie · Apr 1, 2015

oneida said:
"looks good I'll buy it when it's $5 on steam sale"

Look at all those $5 games. :^)

Kinthalis · Apr 1, 2015

tuxfool said:
Err, No.

Gabe has stated that they're looking at future games in the vein of TF2 or Dota2. So multiplayer or community focused. Not games that require the typical single player AAA pipelines.

Wait, how are those not AAA games? Are you now narrowing the definition?

orochi91 · Apr 1, 2015

Elandyll said:
It's a combination of multiple factors really.

* Widespread Piracy in the 90s

Many Publishers drop the PC, but some who remain then turn to

* DRM (most prevalent being a one time use code)

Which prevents resale and rentals (already barely there) which in turn turns the PC physical space into a wasteland and

* Bix Box retailers drop PC games or push them into a "dump all" type shelf

which make Casual buyers either not even consider PC games or

* Massive conversion to Online Purchases with portals such as GoG or Steam, but perceived with lesser value (due to lack of resale possibility/ rental, and crazy sales that happen quite often), and most purchases come with ingrained DRM (cf Steam)

ALSO

* "PC" doesn't have a champion like Sony for Playstation, MS for Xbox or Nintendo for their own platforms.

It was supposed to be MS at some point (GfWL). Valve too (HL, Counter Strike, Team Frotress and now DOTA -are- that big). But one got too busy pushing their proprietary set top box, and the other was busy ushering the new all digital age to make the big game(s) everybody was (and still is) waiting for (HL3 "am cry"). The third big one was still there until recently (Blizzard), but then *gasp* Diablo 3 was ported.

FINALLY

* Cost of AAA developping has ballooned to insane levels

Why do exclusive -at all- as a dev or publisher, if you can release on everything and touch the largest market possible? (cf also the championing problem).

All of the above is my 2cps

PS: As a PC Gamer (mostly) myself, I find there still is a Ton to be enjoyed on PC. whether Indie or AAA. Admitedly I am surprised to see the last bastion of the big AAA PC exclusives making it to console soon (Space sims, cf Elite Dangerous), but it was coming I guess.

Edit: I could add to the above list that now consols are far more PC like than they used to be, so the barrier of entry is probably much lower to do ports, or even lead on console and then do a PC port. Works both ways.

Well said, all of these points are great, but the bolded in particular are what I believe to be the primary factors for the virtually non-existent AAA PC exclusives.

MS can still champion PC as their main platform should they ever get around to ditching a proprietary console platform.

In fact, with the advent of Windows 10 and all the ecosystem unification happening, MS will probably start releasing AAA games on the PC sometime later this gen or early next gen.

Xbox is a dead end with no growth potential in any major (or minor) market.

Stallion Free · Apr 1, 2015

There isn't some owner of the PC platform buying up developers to make games and spend millions on marketing to convince people buy the game because they want to make you feel special for buying into the platform they run. I don't have any issue with it, that's how it should be. The PC exclusives we get are the games from devs who know that their game concept works best on PC (sim games etc.) or games from devs who are too small to target more than one platform at a time. You can't say the same for most console exclusives.

When PC exclusives get ported to other platforms (we have seen this a lot with the best indie games) I don't feel like PC as a platform is being devalued and I feel like I see that attitude nowadays in regards to other platforms.... think Halo getting ported to PC.

orochi91 · Apr 1, 2015

Kinthalis said:
Wait, how are those not AAA games? Are you now narrowing the definition?

I'm going to be honest, I've never heard of TF2 or Dota 2 ever being referred to as AAA.

Are F2P games considered AAA?

Nzyme32 · Apr 1, 2015

I have no idea what people expect. As far as I am concerned there are plenty of excellent "exclusive" titles that I would consider AAA based on their longevity and masses of content.

This thread sounds more like "where are all the best graphicses games", to which I simply say, "go away and leave me to have fun with these other games"

Inuhanyou · Apr 1, 2015

Lasthope106 said:
You can thank Steam and pc gamers, for Sony adopting that approach.

Well then, thank you PC gamers for that

Crisco · Apr 2, 2015

Games cost a lot of money to make and console gamers are far easier to exploit, especially with microtransactions. PC only gamers just aren't conditioned to getting constantly fleeced for marginal content.

Also, this was a bigger problem the last couple gens with technologically incongruous console hardware, I don't think it matters as much these days. The PC versions of multiplatform titles feel much more like the "main" version while the console versions are ports.

Chubzdoomer · Apr 2, 2015

alstein said:
The big reason for no RTS's the past few years was that AAA graphics, hundreds of units, and 32-bit memory requirements just made things impossible.

You'll see more RTS's once Windows 10 takes off and Vista/7 become the minimum OS requirement.

I don't buy this at all. I don't think the RTS genre's decline has anything to do with system requirements, nor do I think Windows 10 will give the genre any sort of boost.

AmFreak · Apr 2, 2015

What's called AAA on the console side has been long dead on the exclusive pc side.
Crysis is often brought up as the last exclusive AAA pc game.
And the time before it came out was already dire, so we are looking at a ~10 year time span where exclusive AAA pc gaming was dead.
I don't really get why so many people seem to realize this now at a time where it's actually getting better for these games on the pc.

jim2point0 · Apr 2, 2015

loganclaws said:
Why not? As far as I know they are all RPGs with stats that the player can modify, etc...

This had me laughing pretty hard. Thanks for that

Madness · Apr 2, 2015

Xis said:
Most publishers would rather spend millions making games that can be published on PC + console than spend millions on games that can only be published on PC.

Yup. Much easier to develop for consoles with guaranteed specs and sales, and then port to PC while tinkering the settings a little to take advantage of the better hardware, than to develop solely for PC and then try and market a severely downgraded version to console gamers. Not saying it cannot be done though.

Plus, most of the big names in the dev space are now console first/only developers. They made most of their name and bones with consoles in the recent era (may have been PC earlier). Bungie, Rockstar, etc. Then you have first party studios like Naughty Dog, Nintendo EAD, 343 Industries. Aside from Valve, who will really champion PC in the same way?

You also have to factor in piracy. People say it doesn't matter, they wouldn't have bought, but it's a risk to spend $60 million making a game, and then have 5-7 million sales, and like 11 million having pirated it. To counter it, they add DRM which then pisses off righteous owners. Additionally, PC games have a lower cost to own, I can't remember the last time I saw a PC game sell for $59-$69. Add in DLC as well. A lot of developers make a killing on DLC for console games.

And finally, sheer competition. Some of the biggest PC games are MOBA's, F2P, indie games etc. No real need to spend tens to hundreds of millions when a game like Minecraft can make bank no? How long before a competitor takes the best part of your game, and releases it for cheaper in a similar game? Something like Dota and how it grew out of Warcraft 3 comes to mind.

Chubzdoomer · Apr 2, 2015

Megatron said:
Why do you want exclusives? Do you only like games if other people can't play them? If aaa exclusives are so important, I guess get a ps4 and a WiiU and an XB1. Problem solved.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that exclusives take advantage of the PC's strengths.

When interfaces, controls, and even graphics are designed based on what PCs have to offer, it often shows.

FACE · Apr 2, 2015

HK-47 said:
An AAA RPG is something like Skyrim or Dragon Age. Not indie CRPGs like Underrail.

Man, I wish AAA RPGs were like Underrail.

Megatron · Apr 2, 2015

Chubzdoomer said:
Perhaps the biggest reason is that exclusives take advantage of the PC's strengths.

When interfaces, controls, and even graphics are designed based on what PCs have to offer, it often shows.

You could say that about exclusives for any system though. The last of us looked better than any multiple plat games, WiiU exclusives like zombieU utilize the game pad çreatively, etc. I think in general hoping for exclusives is poor form. You should hope for as many people as possible to play great games.

vicissitudes · Apr 2, 2015

So I don't know much about PC gaming but...did anyone ever make anything better looking than Crysis?

Fbh · Apr 2, 2015

Because AAA games keep getting more expensive to make and publishers want to sell them on as many platforms as possible so they can reach a bigger audience and sell more.

Big publishers gain nothing from making a AAA PC exclusive other than limiting their audience.
The only big studio that could gain something from making big PC exclusives is Microsoft but they know Windows is already the preffered OS for most PC gamers and they don't want to piss off their Xbox cosumers by making big titles that are on PC but not Xbox

345triangle · Apr 2, 2015

even if the hardcore PC audience were big enough, which it usually isn't for most types of games, think about why console exclusives exist in the first place these days — it's because sony or microsoft or even nintendo fund them.

there is no-one to do that on PC, and therefore almost no reason to make a big-budget PC exclusive. especially not at the start of a new console generation where the architecture is similar and the bar has been raised for PC ports.

could someone theoretically make an amazing PC exclusive that blows away consoles, like crysis did back in the day? sure, but no-one would buy it. it'd have to be a vanity project or kickstarter where notch buys out the top-tier rewards.

LurkerPrime · Apr 2, 2015

AAA PC exclusives involved into something more. No longer intent on garnering mass appeal, breaking sales records, or being recognized by the games media at large, they began to focus on their niche with razor intensity. The margins might not be great, the recognition may be slim, but they're out there, the quality is as good as ever, and they're doing great work to satisfy their fans. 'Tis a glorious time.

Meanwhile, AAA Console exclusives took the opposite path, to become the AAAA experiences we know today.

It will be quite something when we finally see which path was better.

tuxfool · Apr 2, 2015

Kinthalis said:
Wait, how are those not AAA games? Are you now narrowing the definition?

I don't know the budgets for those games, but if you ask most people, they wouldn't immediately come to mind when thinking of that label.

However, those games certainly don't lack the mindshare of a typical AAA release.

Almighty · Apr 2, 2015

They are still around they are just in completely different genres then the console AAA games and are therefore ignored/overlooked by most of GAF.

Qassim · Apr 2, 2015

Assuming that the only advantage of PC is technical is a big mistake. It being an open platform is what gives it the biggest advantages, the big multiplayer games that last for years, upon years and continue to grow are products of the open platform.

The games, the genres, the business models, the features and trends that were pioneered and developed on PC only to later spread throughout the rest of the industry is what makes the PC so great to me.

And in that regard, there are hundreds of games that take advantage of the PC. Too many people look at and use the PC as just a more powerful console and in which case it's you that isn't making the most out of the platform.

Argonomic · Apr 2, 2015

The landscape changed drastically between the launch of the last two titles I shipped, MW2 and then Titanfall.

In the mid to late 2000s you could go console main sku and then spend some additional time and effort to make the game work well on PC, and it would be a good return on investment.

PC main sku has always been, and continues to be valid, as Blizzard and Valve consistently demonstrate. It's just harder to do both. I like the way Blizzard did it with Diablo 3, taking the time to make the game work well on one type of platform at a time.

loganclaws · Apr 2, 2015

jim2point0 said:
This had me laughing pretty hard. Thanks for that

Solid Samus · Apr 2, 2015

345triangle said:
could someone theoretically make an amazing PC exclusive that blows away consoles, like crysis did back in the day? sure, but no-one would buy it.

except every time it actually happens people do buy it; prove they wouldn't

patapuf · Apr 2, 2015

Why would an SP focused AAA FPS, TPS (insert other genre popular on consoles) ever be PC exclusive? It's not even about whether it could be profitable, every publisher will prefer publishing on as many platforms as possible.

AAA PC games are found in genres that aren't popular on consoles and their production values usually go into content and scope rather than shiny graphics.

You could also ask where the AAA games not funded by first parties are. There aren't (m)any. For the same reason. Who outside of first parties benefits of exclusivity for their 50-100 million dollar game.

GnawtyDog · Apr 2, 2015

Crimsonclaw111 said:
One day Valve will make Half Life 3.

Multi-platform.

RoadHazard · Apr 2, 2015

Why would you just leave all the console money on the table with your ultra-expensive AAA title? And nobody's gonna fund games specifically to be PC exclusives, because nobody owns that platform like the console manufacturers do with their platforms. Maybe someone like Nvidia could conceivably fund some PC games (exclusive to Nvidia GPUs?), but they don't seem to be into that.

patapuf · Apr 2, 2015

Solid Samus said:
except every time it actually happens people do buy it; prove they wouldn't

Jep, you could make a crysis on PC nowadays and it'd sell millions (if it was good). But you could also make a crysis and publish it on consoles as well.

Though in this particular example it didn't work to increase sales.

345triangle · Apr 2, 2015

Solid Samus said:
except every time it actually happens people do buy it; prove they wouldn't

enough to make it not worth downscaling the design a little to fit on architecturally identical consoles with more owners that regularly spend $60 on hardcore video games? i don't think so.

Solid Samus · Apr 2, 2015

345triangle said:
enough to make it not worth downscaling the design a little to fit on architecturally identical consoles with more owners that regularly spend $60 on hardcore video games? i don't think so.

you're right, I was just disputing the oft-repeated but rarely validated concept that AAA games just can't exist in the PC space at all and would generally flop. This has not been the case throughout history.

patapuf said:
Jep, you could make a crysis on PC nowadays and it'd sell millions (if it was good). But you could also make a crysis and publish it on consoles as well.

Though in this particular example it didn't work to increase sales.

I attribute a lot of Crysis's success in particular to factors you can't replicate on a console, like it's role as a benchmarking tool and futureproofed visual showcase, its position as the very biggest thing in graphics since whatever, and Crytek successfully selling people on the relative complexity of the gameplay

funkypie · Apr 2, 2015

I'd hope to see more games like pillars, yes it is abit of a niche these days but a proven one. I'd like more games like that, that don't have to rely on crowd funding.

texhnolyze · Apr 2, 2015

funkypie said:
I'd hope to see more games like pillars, yes it is abit of a niche these days but a proven one. I'd like more games like that, that don't have to rely on crowd funding.

We have Torment and Swordcoast Legends coming up next.

Dr. Buni · Apr 2, 2015

funkypie said:
It also makes upgrading your rig less of a priority

That is not a bad thing. The less I have to upgrade my PC, the better.

Teeth · Apr 2, 2015

vicissitudes said:
So I don't know much about PC gaming but...did anyone ever make anything better looking than Crysis?

This is completely, entirely subjective, but it would be hard to say Crysis 3 doesn't look better than an un-modded Crysis 1.

Beyond that, I personally think that a lot of the PC versions of PS4-era games look better than Crysis 1. If we're just going to talk tech, Crytek and most of the other big companies have tent-pole engines that best vanilla Crysis 1. Upper-end Frostbite, Scimitar, Dunia, and all of the proprietary Sony 1st party engines have technology that bests Cryengine 1 by a mile, and of course, so does Cryengine 3.

To be honest, even Unity has a ton of tech in it that wasn't available on Cryengine 1, and higher precision features (physical based lighting, bokeh DoF, SSAO, TXAA, etc.) that top what was available at the time too. The march of time makes any technology somewhat primitive.

That said, what you do with that tech and the artistry behind it can make all the difference in the world.

I honestly think vanilla Crysis 1 looks pretty antiseptic these days. But it's still one of the best shooters ever made.

CecilRousso · Apr 2, 2015

Is Civ 5 AAA?
Are the Total War games?

texhnolyze · Apr 2, 2015

CecilRousso said:
Is Civ 5 AAA?
Are the Total War games?

No.
Apparently, AAA games are games with pretty graphics and first/third person view, combined with simplified, controller-friendly gameplay. PC has 0 AAA game.

Carroway · Apr 2, 2015

Isn't the term Triple A taken directly from Stockmarket lingo?

Basically it is a property that is almost guaranteed to pay off. In investment terms a Triple A game says nothing about the game, but how much money the Developer/Publisher is willing to put behind it, because of it is confidence that the game will be able to earn them back.

This makes sense for games like: Battlefield, CoD, FIFA and so on, because they have historically always been able to earn back their costs.

TL

R Triple A only says something about Budget, and investor confidence, it says nothing about the actual content of the game.

Fafalada · Apr 2, 2015

orochi91 said:
Are F2P games considered AAA?

Most major publishers had at least one F2P project in the last 5 years that they internally refer to as AAA, so yes, it's an established thing.
Not so many of them had an appropriately sized marketing budget to go along-with it(which is how users perceive AAA), but that does little to diminish how expensive some of those projects have been to develop - or operate.

Alo0oy · Apr 2, 2015

AAA console exclusives are usually profitable because they're published by Sony/Microsoft, which means that there are no licensing fees, which means that the profit margins are twice as high, if an Activision game needed to sell 4 million to be considered a success, a Microsoft game can sell 2 million & get nearly the same profits. That doesn't happen on PC because Valve doesn't publish games anymore, & they're the only publisher that can bypass steam licensing fees.

& almost all third party exclusives happen due to market reasons (eg. Dragon Quest only sells well in japan, & Playstation (& 3DS) is the only reasonable platform to release it on). The rest of the console exclusives are either developed or published by the platform holder, with no licensing fees to worry about.

funkypie · Apr 2, 2015

texhnolyze said:
No.
Apparently, AAA games are games with pretty graphics and first/third person view, combined with simplified, controller-friendly gameplay. PC has 0 AAA game.

No need to be butthurt over my op. You have clearly missed my point if you think that is what I was 'complaining' about.

I mean big pc games that take advantage of pc if that be hardware or k/m that are not indie, f2p, mmo and crowd funded.

It wasn't very well explained so I apologise.

Support NeoGAF

What has happened to big and AAA PC only games?

Member

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony

Member

Banned

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony

Fafracer forever

Member

Member

Member

Second-rate Anihawk

Banned

Member

Cock Encumbered

Member

Member

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Plane Escape Torment

Banned

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Fafracer forever

Banned

Banned

Similar threads