But does that long tail cause it to surpass consoles in total per-platform revenue?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CDPR: Witcher 3 was made possible because of console sales
- Thread starter Red Hood
- Start date
Games are supposed to be played by everyone regardless of the platform that they choose. Exclusives are BS in this day and age. I would take less graphics if that means more platforms so more people can enjoy. Anyone who still believes in exclusivity is an ignorant fanboy and should reassess his life.
Dargor
Member
Exactly. Before you said that consoles don't have long term sales, now you said they do, but pc sales have a even longer term.
There is a difference.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
On a long enough timeline, probably.
EDIT: Or do you mean Pc as a single platform versus the combined sales of two other platforms?
I'm saying the same thing for the third time now; console software does not have long tails, outside of very specific 'evergreen' titles.
PC software does.
martino
Member
In absolute game don't need to be developed/released on several platform if the concurrence was only on the game/software/service side.
hardware concurrence and differences puts lot of useless workload to develop ambitious game(in scale).
This is an in-heritage of the past that need to disappear considering actual AAA game costs.
One day...one day it will be there.
And the war will move from stupid platform/brand thing to the actual gameplay of concurrent game licences....
don't wake me up
Dargor
Member
That doesn't make my comparison any less valid nor does it make it disingenuous. I think that, if given enough time, PSN might become just as good as steam, if not better. Since content won't stop coming for it, unless it stops existing.
Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's going to get better than steam? Yeah, a singular closed platform with a far more limited selection of content certainly has the potential of becoming better than the biggest and most powerful software market on an open platform that allows competition for pricing. Your comparison was not disingenuous at all.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
The vast majority of third party console title sales being made in the first month of sale isn't really a thing you can choose to agree or disagree with, it's just a thing.
As for expecting PSN to become a digital distribution service of the same long-tail sales expectation as steam has, I think its fair to say we can look at the PS4s complete lack of backwards compatibility, and the upcoming GOW remaster not offering PS4 compatible releases as a bonus, but rentals on PSNow to see where the future of the PSN is.
and it isn't long-tail sales of older titles.
Dargor
Member
I guess you disagree with me, there is no need to be condescending, though. PSN does not exist in a vacuum, its competing against steam, xbox live, gog, etc. It shares most of its content with all of those.
Do you really think that Sony doesn't want to offer a service that might be considered better than any of the cited? If they are going to be able to, I don't know. But the possibility is there.
You are correct in saying that the vast majority of game sales are frontloaded, but that is true for any platfom, not just consoles. And I wasn't talking about only older titles neither. I bought Far Cry 4 for PSN in a sale, Battlefield 4 in a sale. I had never bought any digital game for the PS3, never had seen value in it.
But they were cheaper at the time I bought them here in Brasil, even when compared to what they were asking for in steam. For them to get me to spend money in a digital sale in a console (something I have never considered before), I can definitely say that their offerings have gotten better.
About BC, it was really a shame to have lost that in the transition from PS3 to PS4, but I can only hope that they offer that from now on, since consoles are working just like pcs now.
This is specifically about games like The Witcher -- huge budget, AAA games. Yes, if consoles die, those games will become notably less frequent.
On the other hand, if consoles die, indie development will be almost entirely unaffected, as 90%+ of indie development is on PC/iOS/Android. Chinese and Korean games will be unaffected, and so forth.
But the Witcher is what we're talking about here, and the style of game the Witcher aspires to is significantly dependent on consoles.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Now that the consoles have emphasized digital sales this gen, I think this is changing. We've seen console games go on sale for $5 or $10 on SEN/XBL these days.
martino
Member
And what if star citizen delivers (and i begin to doubt it will some day).
that would be a solid example of a possible path leading to even more ambitious thing than AAA.
Star Citizen is an extreme exception banking on the thrist of space sim fans that have been starved for years, many of them now old with jobs. I doubt anyone could emulate its success, even Elite Dangerous barely passed its crowdfunding campaign.
Fuz
Banned
Nope. Playerbase will just move to PC.
That isn't necessarily true. You're assuming that if consoles go away, all the people who played on consoles suddenly quit gaming altogether. Many if them would just switch to PC and continue buying games on that platform.
So rather the market being split between the Sony, MS, and PC audiences, it would just be a much larger PC PC audience.
cleveridea
Member
I'm actually really happy with how things turned out regarding PC games with PS4/XBone versions
In the long run the large sales boost keeps this kind of genre viable (compare to the dev time for mobile games for example)
it also means that on a high end PC you can get 1080/60 ultra, and GPU's are strong enough that they will end up able to 4K 60 fps (initially only for ludiscrously expensive SLI setups) - Pascal may make 4K playable on a single card
In the long run the large sales boost keeps this kind of genre viable (compare to the dev time for mobile games for example)
it also means that on a high end PC you can get 1080/60 ultra, and GPU's are strong enough that they will end up able to 4K 60 fps (initially only for ludiscrously expensive SLI setups) - Pascal may make 4K playable on a single card
That's how I feel like when reading many of this thread's posts. Very confused.
Fedora Royale
Member
Good on CDPR for making this game accessible to a wider audience.
martino
Member
true.
Anyway i'm sceptical in a world without closed hardware there will be nobody to take risk and take AAA share on the remaining/replacing market.
Don't tell me people buying sony/ms buy first because of the brand.
Without them if open platforms offer the equivalent service and hype/marketing tell them to buy them then most of this audience will go there.
CecilRousso
Member
That depends on the game. maybe it doesnt make sense for The Witcher 3, but exclusives do make sense when they utilize the platform in a way that others can't. Just look at Civ V and the Total War games for example. They would be radically differrent games if they they werent PC exclusives.
Prime crotch
Banned
diffusionx
Gold Member
And not just that, but its funding model seems built on getting those old, employed people to happily fork over hundreds or even thousands of dollars on in-game macguffins. This is the exception that proves the rule.
My point was to add on to the point being made that most AAA games are being made with console in mind. The person pointed out that there are a few that still are made with PC in mind and I pointed out that one of his examples has started to change.
On a tangent: I personally liked Skyrim while agreeing with a lot of criticisms. It still overall was a very fun game (just I think if it had done some of the stuff people said it should have done it would have been even better). And I'd even say there is some stuff I still think it does better than Witcher though one of the things is more each game has a different goal in mind <- letting you play your own character vs. a set character. I just prefer playing my own story but I realize that's not Witcher's goal so that is more a matter of preference. I think though most of it is personal preference if I'm comparing the two games on why I still prefer Elder Scrolls, I just prefer a game that allows for more choice in how you do things/how you play your character (and Witcher isn't aiming for that as much with the playing a certain character/story line). Though I honestly think it wouldn't hurt too much to make concessions and do stuff like allow sneak in Witcher III (sure, it doesn't fit the story character but it would fit the story fine in the game and people who want to stay true to his character don't have to use it. Kinda like them putting in the crossbow).
I agree Witcher does story (and definitely dialogue) better but that's easier when you have a set character. I do think Skyrim could have done much better with story even with allowing people to write their own character so I would say it is a cop out to excuse Skyrim for its poor story on it not having a set character. Fallout New Vegas does a good job of story in a game that has to have a pretty open story to make way for different type characters. As does Fallout 2 (there's a reason Fallout is my favorite series
).alexandros
Banned
Only if the audience dies with them.
I know for a fact that NeoGAF already went through these discussions last gen and people are still making the same weird opinions 10 years later.
Consoles have been the backbone of AAA games development for a while. Those big budget games are dying, yadda yadda yadda.
I don't know why this is still so shocking to some people.
Consoles have been the backbone of AAA games development for a while. Those big budget games are dying, yadda yadda yadda.
I don't know why this is still so shocking to some people.
Cave Johnson
Member
It's not, the way CDPR went about it seems very sketchy. For making wild claims that their final product would exceed the quality of the trailer, and then proceed to backtrack through the Eurogamer article, a lot of people are now questioning the validity of any of their excuses, including their "AAA need for consoles" reasoning.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
It must be such a simple world where you live, where companies should be able to make the same thing with less resource.
If this were an EA game....
I think a lot of people's beef is with CDPROJECTRED's handling of the situation PR wise in regards to Witcher 3's development. if you want to go off on them, that's fine, but insulting the console user base is just sickening in my eyes.
You don't have to hate a completely different ecosystem a lot of people game on, we didn't do anything besides be part of the same gaming community as yourself.
Your getting the best performance of all games anyway, we should not have to be constantly insulted for things like this.
You don't have to hate a completely different ecosystem a lot of people game on, we didn't do anything besides be part of the same gaming community as yourself.
Your getting the best performance of all games anyway, we should not have to be constantly insulted for things like this.
njean777
Member
While I have no problem moving to PC, your statement is not true. I know even today hardcore console gamers that have no interest in a PC or even learning how to build one. Most of them will stop gaming and either move to mobile, or just stop all together.
Both sides are pretty bad towards each other. I choose console over PC even though I have a great PC, but console is just my preference.
I wouldn't consider those people hardcore then.
I agree that the majority of console gamers wouldn't make the switch, simply because the majority are your typical AAA mainstream gamer, and they wouldn't want to bother with the intricacies of buying/building a PC.
Consoles getting out of the market wouldn't help anyone.
RedAssedApe
Banned
based console gods
Neofire
Member
Seems a lot of people seems burned that a PC former Centric developer admitted in needing console sales because steam/pc isn't the "one and only" divine savior of the game industry like some think. There is a reason why the video game industry thrived from having many platforms for all these centuries.
Centuries...what?
I've only heard Steam viewed as the savior of pc gaming specifically. Never as the savior of gaming as a whole (though I suppose some pc fanatics might consider it one and the same).
Herman Cain
Banned
Wait, how much did the 360 version sell?
Futurematic
Member
Herman Cain
Banned
Drat, for them to make this claim 360 had to sell well but they didn't give out numbers?
I smell 🐟
I smell 🐟
Neofire
Member
Let's see the first console debut in 1972 even with the crash in 1983 Nintendo and other companies managed to revolutionize the video game industry up until today.
alexandros
Banned
No platform stands in a vacuum. They all influence each other and the industry in general. That is not the issue here at all. We all understand the realities of multiplatform development, big games are hugely expensive and releasing on all viable platforms is basically a necessity. Again, not the issue.
The issue is that CDPR chose to deflect the discussion and obfuscate the facts until after the game's release. That's something I would totally expect from EA or Ubisoft but not CDPR until now.
Beerman462
Member
Games of this scale are expensive to make. PC is but one platform games can be sold on. I doubt releasing this game on XB1/PS4 has substantially hurt Witcher 3. Even if it was a PC only release they would have made it able to run on i3s and 750Tis. Nothing was lost by including consoles. In fact much was gained. Bring on The Witcher 4.
Are we seriously arguing about whether a game the size of Witcher 3 could possibly be financed on PC alone? No god damn way.
Why haven't we seen that shit yet? Maybe you can get a sizable linear game like Crysis or The Witcher 2 only on PC. More than likely these days it'll have to be a huge crowdfunding success like Star Citizen or Pillars of Eternity. You've also got Blizzard games that are popular partly because they're optimized to run on common laptops. But an open-world game that rivals Skyrim and GTA V in size and breath of content with fully modern graphics and a shitload of voice acting? Hell no.
And I will chose to believe that a company the size of CDPR didn't have the bandwidth to develop Witcher 3 on two separate renderers between PC and console. Maybe if it had an Assassin's Creed-sized budget we'd be in a different situation, but more than likely at that point it would feel and play like an Assassin's Creed game or Watch_Dogs.
Honestly, I think Witcher 3 (and Witcher 2 before it) is an incredibly balance between budget, technical graphics, art direction, and hand-crafted gameplay we almost never see on this level of gaming hardware.
Edit: I actually do believe a lot of cross-platform games have been made with PC as technically the lead platform, at least in terms of rendering the graphics. A lot of games that came out between 2011 and 2013 were like this. Look at Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, or Far Cry 3, or Battlefield 3. Those games look like their graphics were built on PCs first because their developers were ready for new hardware, then butchered to run on PS3 and 360. Because console architecture is a bit more similar to PC today it probably still happens behind the scenes (though the graphics aren't butchered as much). Probably depends on the developer. Gameplay-wise though most multiplatform are conceptualized from the beginning to accommodate controllers. Skyrim is a huge example. Witcher 3 is probably no exception. I think most western developers have done a generally crappy job of taking gameplay traditionally made for mouses and converting them to play on controllers, often dumbing down gameplay. Some developers however go the extra mile and rebuild the entire UI for the PC version. BioWare might actually be a reasonably good example. Dragon Age Origins is the last multiplatform game off the top of my head I can think of that really was a PC game ported to consoles, and the console version felt awkward as a result. Still, Dragon Age 2's PC UI wasn't consolized at all. I haven't played Inquisition but hear bad things about its PC UI. The PC port of Mass Effect 1 is actually one of the best examples of console UI being redesigned around mouse and keyboard. ME 2 and 3 did this less, but still set aside distinct PC UIs.
The Witcher? Each of the three games has significantly different combat (more different than most trilogies). Witcher 1's UI is completely mouse and keyboard-centric but received a mixed reception anyway. Witcher 2 was probably slightly simplified from that, but it's not like people really lost much from Witcher 1.
Why haven't we seen that shit yet? Maybe you can get a sizable linear game like Crysis or The Witcher 2 only on PC. More than likely these days it'll have to be a huge crowdfunding success like Star Citizen or Pillars of Eternity. You've also got Blizzard games that are popular partly because they're optimized to run on common laptops. But an open-world game that rivals Skyrim and GTA V in size and breath of content with fully modern graphics and a shitload of voice acting? Hell no.
And I will chose to believe that a company the size of CDPR didn't have the bandwidth to develop Witcher 3 on two separate renderers between PC and console. Maybe if it had an Assassin's Creed-sized budget we'd be in a different situation, but more than likely at that point it would feel and play like an Assassin's Creed game or Watch_Dogs.
Honestly, I think Witcher 3 (and Witcher 2 before it) is an incredibly balance between budget, technical graphics, art direction, and hand-crafted gameplay we almost never see on this level of gaming hardware.
Edit: I actually do believe a lot of cross-platform games have been made with PC as technically the lead platform, at least in terms of rendering the graphics. A lot of games that came out between 2011 and 2013 were like this. Look at Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, or Far Cry 3, or Battlefield 3. Those games look like their graphics were built on PCs first because their developers were ready for new hardware, then butchered to run on PS3 and 360. Because console architecture is a bit more similar to PC today it probably still happens behind the scenes (though the graphics aren't butchered as much). Probably depends on the developer. Gameplay-wise though most multiplatform are conceptualized from the beginning to accommodate controllers. Skyrim is a huge example. Witcher 3 is probably no exception. I think most western developers have done a generally crappy job of taking gameplay traditionally made for mouses and converting them to play on controllers, often dumbing down gameplay. Some developers however go the extra mile and rebuild the entire UI for the PC version. BioWare might actually be a reasonably good example. Dragon Age Origins is the last multiplatform game off the top of my head I can think of that really was a PC game ported to consoles, and the console version felt awkward as a result. Still, Dragon Age 2's PC UI wasn't consolized at all. I haven't played Inquisition but hear bad things about its PC UI. The PC port of Mass Effect 1 is actually one of the best examples of console UI being redesigned around mouse and keyboard. ME 2 and 3 did this less, but still set aside distinct PC UIs.
The Witcher? Each of the three games has significantly different combat (more different than most trilogies). Witcher 1's UI is completely mouse and keyboard-centric but received a mixed reception anyway. Witcher 2 was probably slightly simplified from that, but it's not like people really lost much from Witcher 1.
alexandros
Banned
For the same reason you haven't seen it on any other platform: it doesn't make a lick of business sense. In today's market the only reason to keep a game exclusive to any one platform would be if the game just wouldn't work on other platforms (like PC grand strategy games) or if you're being contracted or moneyhatted by a platform holder.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
I feel like if consoles didn't exist, more people would embrace mobile over PC gaming so I can definitely see how this makes sense that a game as big as Witcher 3 was only possible on consoles due to the market it's bringing. I've seen people talk about this game (and possible even consider getting it) even when they never talked about the first two games (and the main reason used against getting it is the fact that the first two games are out and really only on PC -- except for Witcher 2 technically).
This is the ultimate truth I'm surprised people still don't understand. It's pretty much how most software outside video games has always worked.
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Kudos to CDPR for having the balls to say it! Most 3rd party publishers would have hid this information behind a wall of PR spin.
I appreciate their transparency, which is something Ubisoft didn't do. However, I believe they did it too late. They should have talked about this long before, plus I don't believe them when they say this couldn't have happened on PC alone. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 did extremely well on PC. This isn't a niche series that sells a few hundred thousand.
Scale sure, but Witcher 3 would have been fine as a PC exclusive had things been different. I'm glad they decided to head the console direction so they could expand the series, but they need to remember PC is what made them to begin with.
Scale sure, but Witcher 3 would have been fine as a PC exclusive had things been different. I'm glad they decided to head the console direction so they could expand the series, but they need to remember PC is what made them to begin with.
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Not to throw shade in CDPR's direction but I believe it wouldn't have been in their best interest as it is a featured product on their very own digital games platform GoG.