Reply With QuoteIt's more like Epic stopped caring about UT. The last game in that series was terrible. It's like they were just phoning it in.
http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/18/epic...-onto-console/
Given that Epic was one of the few devs doing PC right (with constant free content updates to keep people playing), it's actually kind of surprising. It kind of shoots down the notion that you can keep a game's sales healthy by simply providing constant free updates. Though maybe it's just that people stopped caring about the UT games.
It's more like Epic stopped caring about UT. The last game in that series was terrible. It's like they were just phoning it in.
Beaten.
I know the pile-on against Epic, Warren, and Charles in this thread will be entertaining, but I'll come out before the festivities to say that there are a ton of reasons for a big budget dev to become a console-primary house. Piracy is one of those reasons, but the bottom line reason is... Well, the bottom line.
This is true, which is why I wonder why any time a company announces that they're going console-only, they try to blame piracy, when it's not a direct cause of anything. It might be a secondary contributing factor to the shrinkage of the customer base, but it's not the ROOT cause of anything. Why isn't it okay to just say, "We can make a flaming ass ton more money selling to console dudes, so we don't want to waste any of our company's time developing for PC only?"Originally Posted by Telefrog
I know, right? Hey, remember that TF2 game? Man, that sank like a rock, nobody plays that crap anymore.
Hah. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'd actually guess that in recent years more hours Epic games have been played on the console than on PC, piracy or not...
Nah, I don't intend to get involved in this thread. I'll just say that there is a fuckton more money to be made making console games. That's pretty much the end of the story.
Parting shot on the way out the door.
Yeah, I think the real lesson is that nobody cares much about updates for a shitty game.
Ok EPIC then fire those morons that signed off "Bulletstorm" to be coming out for the PC since you will burn money releasing it on the pirate-infested platform. Oh it was your top management? Damn...
UT3 was shit EPIC live with it.
It bombed because it sucked not because it was pirated (and boy I can send you back my Collector's Edition if you suggest otherwise)!
Is Valve more the exception rather than the norm though? TF2 was built on a very strong community, and each of the updates have been marketed well and brought something new and interesting to the game, well, besides hats. I haven't had too much exposure with Left 4 Dead, I know they had free content made available, but did it really benefit the L4D community?
With the ever increasing rise of DLC however, it makes it hard to see any developer bothering with constant free updates. Why make them free when people might be willing to pay?
I thought Epic announced their focus on consoles (and ridiculous "pirates made us do it" statement) a long time ago.
That was what I thought too. I really don't find anything surprising about this announcement at all. The reason cited, piracy, probably isn't the only or even primary reason. Companies have never been known for openly and honestly addressing all the issues in their PR though, so I'm not surprised they didn't come out and say that consoles were where the money is.
Hint: If there hadn't been a Xbox 360 version of LFD2, Valve wouldn't have given it a $25 million ad campaign.
Which is exactly what I think and apparently what a lot of other devs and publishers think.
Attributing continued success of a game to extra content seems about as tricky to really prove as attributing failure to piracy. In both cases there's certainly an effect, but I'm not sure how you'd isolate and quantify it.
I thought Epic hadn't made a decent game in years and years.
You're right. We've made great games. :)
Valve is different as their survival partially depends on the PC platform and more specifically the "console" they've built called Steam that functions only on PCs and Macs.
Sure you have. Just none after Unreal Tournament 2003.
I think one reason is because in a game like an online shooter, which you expect (or hope) that people will play continuously over the long term, the introduction of paid DLC raises the perceived bar for entry over time (even if the DC is optional), and can eventually limit the growth of your audience. It can also be problematic to create DLC for a multiplayer competitive game that gives you something worth paying for, but at the same time doesn't unbalance the game for people that don't have it.
I think the way that Valve does it with TF2 is very smart. They don't charge for the DLC, but the fact that they continually add DLC allows them to maintain the price point of the base game. In fact, it makes it seem like a better and better value as time goes on, even though a three-year old game wouldn't normally still be selling for the same price point that it sold for at launch.
Do many people buy it when it's not on sale for ridiculously cheap prices?
Dude? UT2K4>UT2K3
What was the lowest they've sold Team Fortress 2 for, though? $15? $20? I wouldn't call that ridiculously cheap.
Oh, I don't know. I thought Horde mode in GoW2 was pretty brilliant. That mode alone made GoW2 a great game for me.
Man, that's a long time. I should really go talk to someone about this. Do you think management knows?
From what I can see, $2.49 was the lowest, but I can think of plenty of sales in which it was $5.
http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=3014
They'll probably blame you. Which they should.
The only reason I bought UT3 was because of the way Epic supported it with free DLC. The game itself was not too good, mostly because that kind of shooter just fell out of fashion.
Posting Permissions