How many employees at Ensemble & Aces? How many years between releases? We should be able to guess whether they were profitable. That the games they eventually shipped sold well is necessary information but not sufficient.
Let's say Microsoft management changed its opinion of PC opportunities when Don came on board. I'd still blame Remedy for slipping into the Mattrick.
It seems plausible that Microsoft said something like "we're only going to launch this game once. If both versions are ready, we'll launch them together, otherwise we won't." If something like that happened, there's enough wiggle room for Remedy to say it wasn't their call, etc. But to give the benefit of the doubt to a developer who was years late, radically changed its genre/scope, etc. seems unnecessarily generous.
Piracy is killing PC gaming, so it's not hard to excuse no PC version, especially late. Didn't Epic say it wasn't worth doing anymore Gears because of the piracy?
And I wouldn't expect any dev who is out looking for a gig to say "yea, we couldn't make the deadline ***after it moved years*** even though everyone knows 360C ports are easy. So we had to decide to make the best of the 360 version and even that disappointed."
It doesn't affect me. I don't give a shit. The only thing I cared about was that I asked for a source, and a bunch of people without a source jumped in claiming that their assumptions were the equivalent of facts.
"Every single game Ensemble Studios made, across more than a decade, paid for its development and made a profit," - Ian Fischer, ex Ensemble
exwallst said:
And I wouldn't expect any dev who is out looking for a gig to say "yea, we couldn't make the deadline ***after it moved years*** even though everyone knows 360C ports are easy. So we had to decide to make the best of the 360 version and even that disappointed."
The initial Alan Wake footage was used to show of the potential of Quad Core processors. If the game pushed PC hardware enough that it was shown off by Intel, chances are it would have been a PC to 360 port, not the other way around. It's not hard to assume that the publisher bankrolling the game didn't want the 360 version to just be a cut down PC game.
all unlinked facts are from the wiki pages on Alan Wake, Xbox Live, GFW Live, and Microsoft Game Studios
FACT: E3 2005, Alan Wake is announced for "next gen consoles and PCs"
Xbox 360 launches in November 2005 with Xbox Live Gold subscriptions available.
Microsoft Game Studios 2005 PC releases- Age of Empires 3, Dungeon Siege 2, Fable, Zoo Tycoon 2
FACT: In May '06, Remedy and MGS announce a publishing partnership for X360 and PC for Alan Wake
Microsoft Game Studios 2006 PC releases - Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, Age of Empires 3: The War Chiefs, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, four Zoo Tycoon 2 expansions
FACT: In May 2007, Microsoft launches Games for Windows Live, with a similar subscription model to Xbox Live. Shadowrun is the first GFWL game.
Remedy continues to show the PC version of the game.
Microsoft Game Studios 2007 PC releases: Shadowrun, Halo 2, Age of Empires 3: The Asian Dynasties, Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Acceleration, Viva Pinata, Gears of War
FACT: Remedy continues to show the PC version of the game.
With the subscription service for GFWL not doing so well, Microsoft decides to make GFWL free in July 2008.
Microsoft's PC output disappears completely.
Microsoft Game Studios 2008 PC releases: none.
FACT: Alan Wake is suddenly primarily an Xbox 360 game , with a PC version now up to Microsoft.
Here is a direct quote from the linked article, from a Remedy representative:
Microsoft Game Studios 2009 PC releases: none.
FACT: Alan Wake is released as an Xbox 360 exclusive, and the PC version is canceled.
Now are you going to sit there and tell me that Microsoft didn't tell Remedy to cancel the PC version given all of those facts, and given LINKED QUOTES from Remedy SAYING that a PC version was up to Microsoft Game Studios?
I've given quite enough proof, I think. Ball's in your court, chief.
It's amazing how obvious Microsoft's internal fights have been. There were clearly 2 camps: the group that wanted to stage big PC gaming comeback, bringing it back into the public sphere on the same level as consoles, and the group that wanted to abandon it entirely.
The guys staging the comeback had enough resources allotted to them to get GFW out the door, but not enough to actually properly support it. Then, as it faltered due to the compromises and lack of support that the skeptics forced on it, the justification for abandoning the platform crystallized. The skeptics won and all platform support was pulled.
It seems plausible that Microsoft said something like "we're only going to launch this game once. If both versions are ready, we'll launch them together, otherwise we won't." If something like that happened, there's enough wiggle room for Remedy to say it wasn't their call, etc. But to give the benefit of the doubt to a developer who was years late, radically changed its genre/scope, etc. seems unnecessarily generous.
No, it's actually completely NOT plausible. MS has clearly stated they do not want PC and 360 versions to launch at the same time. They said they want PC version delayed and that avaibility of PC version at the same day as 360 would do big damage to 360.
So, no...your theory is completely not plausible.
exwallst said:
Piracy is killing PC gaming, so it's not hard to excuse no PC version, especially late. Didn't Epic say it wasn't worth doing anymore Gears because of the piracy?
PCgaming is actualy growing. Piracy isn't killing it.
And seriously with Gears? I would assume MS also has something to do with it. If it as you said " wasn't worth it anymore" to publish on PC why the hell did Bulletstorm appear on PC?
Quoting Ian is more than I have. However, and apologies for the nit, that they only SHIPPED profitable games doesn't mean the studio was profitable if they cancelled a bunch of highly unprofitable ones.
And I'm with anyone who is arguing that Microsoft's priority was 360 over PC. I'm sure Remedy's was as well. That doesn't mean Remedy had nothing to do with the 2ndary priority not making it. I think they simply couldn't deliver.
If the standing policy is a lag between 360 and PC, then you're right and it's not a very good theory. I thought we all agreed that Microsoft's PC strategy changed all the time, though.
I thought it was Epic that badmouthed the PC retail market due to the piracy.
Maybe EA insisted on a PC version? Or maybe they had time to have all the versions ready where Gears didn't (Gears 3 certainly did so this may be a lame point)?
I'm sure Remedy's was as well. That doesn't mean Remedy had nothing to do with the 2ndary priority not making it. I think they simply couldn't deliver.
I think they could deliver it easily and Microsoft just forbid them to do so. If Remedy owned the rights to the IP they would propably just go over Microsoft's heads and release PC version few months later with different publisher the same way other devs were forced to.
However, and apologies for the nit, that they only SHIPPED profitable games doesn't mean the studio was profitable if they cancelled a bunch of highly unprofitable ones.
There was only one of those afaik, their Halo MMO. Microsoft were actually building new premises to develop it, but funding for that was pulled with little warning.
exwallst said:
I thought it was Epic that badmouthed the PC retail market due to the piracy.
They did, but didn't go quite as far as to suggest it was their decision and piracy was the reason for it. I don't recall whether MS own the IP or not, but they were pretty clear just the other day that they're happy for MS to publish it and happy for it to continue be a 360 exclusive franchise. There will be no PS3 or PC Gears 3. Bulletstorm shows that this stuff mostly comes down to a publisher decision. They're funding the development in a lot of cases after all.
I think they could deliver it easily and Microsoft just forbid them to do so. If Remedy owned the rights to the IP they would propably just go over Microsoft's heads and release PC version few months later with different publisher the same way other devs were forced to.
Again, the pattern of facts doesn't suggest to me that Remedy had a lot of extra time. Nor does it look like Microsoft had much influence on Remedy throughout its delayed development. It's certainly possible that it was ready at launch and Microsoft (and Remedy) wanted to focus on the 360. That it hasn't come out now doesn't really surprise me given how poor the sales were on 360. How much would another publisher and Remedy expect to make?
Using Wikipedia and making some rough assumptions. Microsoft owned Ensemble for eight years. Let's say $20M/year in employee costs. That's a $160M nut + the cost of marketing Age of Mythology, Age 3, and Halo Wars (let's add another $40M?). Are you sure the sales of Myth/Age3/Halo Wars covers $200M?
It's amazing how obvious Microsoft's internal fights have been. There were clearly 2 camps: the group that wanted to stage big PC gaming comeback, bringing it back into the public sphere on the same level as consoles, and the group that wanted to abandon it entirely.
My understanding is that the centerpiece of their PC strategy was to develop GFWL as a subscription service and to make games that were cross-platform and to structure GFWL in the same way they did for the xbox. The GFWL initiative tanked, as did the handful of games they developed for it (for obvious reasons). And since it was not viable to gouge PC gamers via GFWL as they do with xbox users their interest waned.
Only because they can't. It's that simple, Roland. If they could, they could shut me down in an instant and I would happily admit I was wrong.
You saying "nobody gives a fuck about proving anything" just tells me that this thread is filling up with egotist kids looking for semantic arguments, rather than people who are interested in facts. You should give a fuck about proving something, because for once, that would make you right.
why do you care whether it's a fact or not, are you so blind by logic that you can't see that Microsoft wants people to play on teh X-box only? can you address that?
At this point it's more of the other way around. PC gamers need a reason to give a shit about Microsoft.
They have effectively ceded the PC gaming platform to Valve at this point, and the sooner they decide whether they want to go all in and make a full PC effort, or whether they want to just abandon the whole thing, the better it will be for all of us.
This half-assed plan they have now of not actually releasing any games and still dropping money for other people's games to require GFWL is bad for players and a detriment to the platform as a whole.
Using Wikipedia and making some rough assumptions. Microsoft owned Ensemble for eight years. Let's say $20M/year in employee costs. That's a $160M nut + the cost of marketing Age of Mythology, Age 3, and Halo Wars (let's add another $40M?). Are you sure the sales of Myth/Age3/Halo Wars covers $200M?
Where did you get the idea that it costed $20M a year to cover Ensemble's costs? It was a PC studio, not console one.
Also...that's how much modern console studios cost...balooned by this gen costs. Ensemble operated in late 90s and first half of last decade. When they started I doubt the whole Age of Empires costed more than 1-2 mlns
Again, the pattern of facts doesn't suggest to me that Remedy had a lot of extra time. Nor does it look like Microsoft had much influence on Remedy throughout its delayed development.
Actualy, it's completely the opposite. I doubt that without MS 360 would become the lead version, considering PC versions was all they've shown before MS became the publisher. So the pattern shows MS had plenty of influence. And MS' behaviour shows pattern of desperately dropping anything related to pc development, whether it was still financially viable or not.
The pattern of facts I see points to completely opposite conclusion than the one you've arrived at.
It doesn't affect me. I don't give a shit. The only thing I cared about was that I asked for a source, and a bunch of people without a source jumped in claiming that their assumptions were the equivalent of facts.
There was only one of those afaik, their Halo MMO. Microsoft were actually building new premises to develop it, but funding for that was pulled with little warning.
They did, but didn't go quite as far as to suggest it was their decision and piracy was the reason for it. I don't recall whether MS own the IP or not, but they were pretty clear just the other day that they're happy for MS to publish it and happy for it to continue be a 360 exclusive franchise. There will be no PS3 or PC Gears 3. Bulletstorm shows that this stuff mostly comes down to a publisher decision. They're funding the development in a lot of cases after all.
Epic own the Gears of War IP but Microsoft own the rights to Gears 1-3, once 3 is done Epic can make Gears 4 multiplatform but as you said, they continue to get great deals from Microsoft so they won't. I would expect a spinoff on PS3 and maybe iphone/ipad.
What possible motive does MS have to limit their own customer base like this. There is no way releasing this game on the PC would not generate SOME profit for them. I cant wrap my head around it.
My hypothesis is that Remedy couldn't deliver. No matter how easy/hard the port, they were behind and focused everything on the 360 (certainly because Microsoft would have chosen 360 over PC but also because Remedy would have chosen it).
That guess could be well off just like the $20M/year assumption for Ensemble. Maybe it's easier to get sales for Ensemble's games and back into how much that could have supported?
In the nutshell are you implying MS canceled singleplayer game because pc gamers didn't want to pay for multiplayer features?
As I wrote in the other thread I see it this way.
360 version lags behind PC version. MS is frustrated it's taking so long to release game.
MS forces Remedy to stop making pc version and focus on 360 version.
Because 360 version didn't took world by storm, MS didn't want to invest any more money into pc version without guaranteed success.
And I find the quote from the developer, at best, to be incomplete and self-serving. Though I could be completely wrong, I find it easier to believe Remedy simply missed the date (as they had for years). Then the 360 game didn't sell enough to justify a port. But it could be that Microsoft is/was sitting on it or that Remedy wants to get paid to do the finishing work to make it run on enough machines to make it worth while, etc.
Look in a lot of topics and you will see how people say "There aren't enough games on the 360 that I want" or LOL 360 has no exclusives". But these are the same people that are begging for a PC vrsion of Halo 3, Reach, Gears 2 and 3, Alan Wake and other exclsuives that the 360 supposedly don't have.
My hypothesis is that Remedy couldn't deliver. No matter how easy/hard the port, they were behind and focused everything on the 360 (certainly because Microsoft would have chosen 360 over PC but also because Remedy would have chosen it).
That guess could be well off just like the $20M/year assumption for Ensemble. Maybe it's easier to get sales for Ensemble's games and back into how much that could have supported?
But Remedy had only ever developed PC games though, Alan Wake was their first non-pc experience. If anything they could have developed for the PC quicker and more efficiently than for 360. Microsoft saw having it as 360 exclusive would sell more hardware.
And I find the quote from the developer, at best, to be incomplete and self-serving. Though I could be completely wrong, I find it easier to believe Remedy simply missed the date (as they had for years).
Because at one point Alan Wake was even advertised as Vista exclusive title (because of supposedly required DX10)? Because the PC version was cancelled just few months before release? Yeah, I dunno why people complain.
Polk said:
Because 360 version didn't took world by storm, MS didn't want to invest any more money into pc version without guaranteed success.
The problem is that PC version was cancelled before X360 version release, not after "360 version didn't took world by storm".
Phoenix Fang said:
But these are the same people that are begging for a PC vrsion of Halo 3, Reach, Gears 2 and 3, Alan Wake and other exclsuives that the 360 supposedly don't have.
I can give you Halo & Gears titles, but as I've written above, few months before release Alan Wake was still a PC & X360 title. So it's not the case of begging for X360 exclusive to be released on PC, it's the case of being angry that PC/X360 title, that many people waited for for years, suddenly became a X360 exclusive.
PCs cannot be hooked up to TVs. All HDMI ports are being removed from video cards from here on out. Also, history has been changed so the wireless 360 controller PC adapter was never manufactured.
Also MS are reclling the xbox 360 VGa adapter and removing all support for PC monitor resolutions. Can't risk people playing the 360 in an intimate environment
Look in a lot of topics and you will see how people say "There aren't enough games on the 360 that I want" or LOL 360 has no exclusives". But these are the same people that are begging for a PC vrsion of Halo 3, Reach, Gears 2 and 3, Alan Wake and other exclsuives that the 360 supposedly don't have.
Actually, I do have an xbox360 but since I haven't bought the game yet it might be interesting to wait for a better looking PC version. These things sometimes have a one year exclusivity so it's possible something will be announced in the next few months regarding a PC version. If there's no announcement, then I can finally bury my last hopes and get the x360 version.
I can give you Halo & Gears titles, but as I've written above, few months before release Alan Wake was still a PC & X360 title. So it's not the case of begging for X360 exclusive to be released on PC, it's the case of being angry that PC/X360 title, that many people waited for for years, suddenly became a X360 exclusive.
What's the point of getting angry when you cannot change the outcome? Seems to me it's better directing that anger towards something that can actually make a difference.
Look in a lot of topics and you will see how people say "There aren't enough games on the 360 that I want" or LOL 360 has no exclusives". But these are the same people that are begging for a PC vrsion of Halo 3, Reach, Gears 2 and 3, Alan Wake and other exclsuives that the 360 supposedly don't have.
What's the point of getting angry when you cannot change the outcome? Seems to me it's better directing that anger towards something that can actually make a difference.
The 360 is kind of just an old pc. It would be a little ridiculous to act like there are insurmountable challenges in porting a game between the two platforms.
Because at one point Alan Wake was even advertised as Vista exclusive title (because of supposedly required DX10)? Because the PC version was cancelled just few months before release? Yeah, I dunno why people complain.
The problem is that PC version was cancelled before X360 version release, not after "360 version didn't took world by storm".
I can give you Halo & Gears titles, but as I've written above, few months before release Alan Wake was still a PC & X360 title. So it's not the case of begging for X360 exclusive to be released on PC, it's the case of being angry that PC/X360 title, that many people waited for for years, suddenly became a X360 exclusive.
Again I say so? Alan Wake isn't the only 360 game that gets all these begging post. Every MS exclusive gets them. MS needs exclusive games to build an identity just like Sony and Nintendo.
C ports are easy. So we had to decide to make the best of the 360 version and even that disappointed."
