Rocket, Please don't. (Dayz on Console).

[jaycufc 5]

History

remember when dice said the same about BF3?

[calin_banc 5]

For fuck's sake, why does nobody understand?!

IF DAYZ IS ON CONSOLE, THEN IT WILL BE BASED ON THE PC VERSION. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE PC VERSION WOULD NOT DIFFER FROM WHAT IT IS NOW. WHY DOES EVERYBODY THINK THAT IT WILL BE DIFFERENT?

If you develop a game that would run in the future on a PSP, for instance, it has to be created around that hardware. The better versions of it, has nicer graphics, but that's about it in general, the gameplay is hindered by that decision.

Tod Howard said before Skyrim release that he's happy with the hardware that is available today and a better one, will only give the advantage of rendering richer graphics, 7 feet away, where the player doesn't see it that well anyway. The same Tod Howard that said when Oblivion came out, that "with every new game in -The Elder Scrolls- series, we set to reinvent what TES means, it is essential. This was not possible on current gen hardware". It's the same now and it will always be the same until we reach the Star Trek's Holodeck simulation level.

When Oblivion came out, it has worse graphics that on those presentation videos simply because the console couldn't handle the engine. Of course, it would have been a burden for the PC's of those time, but over the course of next gen video cards and CPU, that would mean nothing - as it has been proved. Still, advanced shawdows were out for both platform.

Deus Ex is one of those "must play" games, a stone mark in gaming. It came out in 2000 I think, being the Crysis of it's time in HW demands, with beautiful visual, a creative gameplay that gave the player the possibility to finish a mission in different ways, a good story, believable characters and a truly awesome feeling of it all.

Deus Ex 2 came out, completely consolized and dumbed down.

Far Cry 2 promised to be a good game judging by the dev's movies, with a state of the art graphics engine, smart AI, a "smart" story and more than one way to tackle a situation . What came out was a highly repetitive game, with dumb AI, stupid storyline/storytelling, empty world and shot-them-all gameplay mechanics.

Crysis 2 it was going to be better than the first two "thanks to consoles" - devs words. It end it up a corridor shooter, with less of the suit's abilities and an idiotic customization for the weapons/suit.

Mafia, another land mark, was continued with Mafia 2, a game that was released before it was properly finished, with dumb DLC content and a poor and short storyline.

Mass Effect 3, same story.

The list could go on for quite a while. On one hand, there is the console's old hardware which hinders new gameplay mechanics and graphics and on the other hand, there is the fact that gaming is an "industry". The emphasis on broader audience and the lack of a really mature and strong gaming press, lead to the today's gaming state. Imagine Day Z trying to reach on that trend, to cater for that sort of potential clients: balanced sniper rifles, balanced vehicles and items spawns, balance everything to the point the game may not be the same.

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it could go both ways, I wouldn't care that much, because the gameplay it's still in it's development state. It could turn out to be something great or just something okish from time to time. Survival is easy, but we all know that it is need it a lot more than that to maintain a "sex-appeal".

[Carebear Baddie 47]

snip

All my beans are belong to you.

[integ3r 5]

nonsense

the reason BF3 is "dumbed" down (even ignoring the fact it's better on PC anyway) is because it's a mass-market game,

Console = Mass market

[jdblair5 170]

Kinda putting the cart before the horse a lil' here eh. How about we let good ole' Rocket hash out the issues with the MOD before we start talking about porting the "game" over to consoles... Just saying.

[calin_banc 5]

I think the game will hit the shelves in Alpha and if it sells well, it will go on consoles, probably somewhere in that state or in Beta. Discussions are always good, two heads think better than one. :)

[Edwards4ID 6]

You mean they would hook up a keyboard and a mouse to a case containing a processor, gpu and HDD connected to a monitor?

Kinda like a PC? /facepalm.

My PC doesn't void its own warranty if I decided to open it up and blow the dust out. Don't know what kind of PC you own. Mac, me thinks?

[sfscriv 14]

If he does commits horrible crime of lowing DayZ so those consoles can run it, the PC master race will rise up upon him.

And, he and the other suits will laugh at the "PC master race" all the way to the bank. Ask the Electronic Arts executives. They are still laughing about the deception operations they pulled off on the "PC master race."

remember when dice said the same about BF3?

Console = Mass market

=multiplatform=shift in resources to the consoles=agreements with console companies=dumbed down= -> PC platform looses Edited August 19, 2012 by sfscriv

[jblackrupert 308]

And, he and the other suits will laugh at the "PC master race" all the way to the bank. Ask the Electronic Arts executives. They are still laughing about the deception operations they pulled off on the "PC master race."

=multiplatform=shift in resources to the consoles=agreements with console companies=dumbed down= -> PC platform looses

EA hasn't turned a profit in several years.

There's also rumours that they are up for sale.

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28406-ea-might-be-up-for-sale

[daze23 549]

If you develop a game that would run in the future on a PSP, for instance, it has to be created around that hardware. The better versions of it, has nicer graphics, but that's about it in general, the gameplay is hindered by that decision.

Tod Howard said before Skyrim release that he's happy with the hardware that is available today and a better one, will only give the advantage of rendering richer graphics, 7 feet away, where the player doesn't see it that well anyway. The same Tod Howard that said when Oblivion came out, that "with every new game in -The Elder Scrolls- series, we set to reinvent what TES means, it is essential. This was not possible on current gen hardware". It's the same now and it will always be the same until we reach the Star Trek's Holodeck simulation level.

When Oblivion came out, it has worse graphics that on those presentation videos simply because the console couldn't handle the engine. Of course, it would have been a burden for the PC's of those time, but over the course of next gen video cards and CPU, that would mean nothing - as it has been proved. Still, advanced shawdows were out for both platform.

Deus Ex is one of those "must play" games, a stone mark in gaming. It came out in 2000 I think, being the Crysis of it's time in HW demands, with beautiful visual, a creative gameplay that gave the player the possibility to finish a mission in different ways, a good story, believable characters and a truly awesome feeling of it all.

Deus Ex 2 came out, completely consolized and dumbed down.

Far Cry 2 promised to be a good game judging by the dev's movies, with a state of the art graphics engine, smart AI, a "smart" story and more than one way to tackle a situation . What came out was a highly repetitive game, with dumb AI, stupid storyline/storytelling, empty world and shot-them-all gameplay mechanics.

Crysis 2 it was going to be better than the first two "thanks to consoles" - devs words. It end it up a corridor shooter, with less of the suit's abilities and an idiotic customization for the weapons/suit.

Mafia, another land mark, was continued with Mafia 2, a game that was released before it was properly finished, with dumb DLC content and a poor and short storyline.

Mass Effect 3, same story.

The list could go on for quite a while. On one hand, there is the console's old hardware which hinders new gameplay mechanics and graphics and on the other hand, there is the fact that gaming is an "industry". The emphasis on broader audience and the lack of a really mature and strong gaming press, lead to the today's gaming state. Imagine Day Z trying to reach on that trend, to cater for that sort of potential clients: balanced sniper rifles, balanced vehicles and items spawns, balance everything to the point the game may not be the same.

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it could go both ways, I wouldn't care that much, because the gameplay it's still in it's development state. It could turn out to be something great or just something okish from time to time. Survival is easy, but we all know that it is need it a lot more than that to maintain a "sex-appeal".

you're just blaming consoles for game companies empty promises

it's hard to really say since there's so few pc-only games. I guess we could look at SWTOR and Diablo 3...

[Herb (DayZ) 121]

you're just blaming consoles for game companies empty promises

it's hard to really say since there's so few pc-only games. I guess we could look at SWTOR and Diablo 3...

and you could take a look at arma... oh wait

[daze23 549]

and you could take a look at arma... oh wait

my point is he's just cherry picking. plenty of pc-only games have been disappointments

the development of this game has been all about doing things different. so have a little faith and don't assume it will fall into the same traps as other games. rocket seems pretty stubborn about making the game he wants, so lets see how this all works out. I see this just like him talking about the game on one big eve-like server. it's something he would like to do, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen

[Steve McAwesome 6]

Yeah dayz on consoles will ruin the pc version, just like minecraft! Oh wait.....

[calin_banc 5]

you're just blaming consoles for game companies empty promises

it's hard to really say since there's so few pc-only games. I guess we could look at SWTOR and Diablo 3...

I'm not, just point out some facts. That list could contain Operation Flashpoint series and Call of Juarezz as well, among newer IPs.

The "problem with consoles" I've already went through it above:

a) limited hardware;

B) it caters to a lot of people, hence the need to make everything as easy to use as possible.

Because of that, a lot of games are shorter, condensed, sometimes with stupid UI adapted to the console's gamepad, with big "wow" moments at every step. The modern human doesn't have a lot of time to invest in a game. He wants easy thrills, easy to understand and use gameplay mechanics, a relatively good story and that's about it. Some may even skip the cut-scenes or dialogs in order the "get to the point".

The youth who never experienced "the gold age" of gaming, may never understand why we like complex RPGs and stories, why you shouldn't be quickly rewarded for your every action and laugh in your face and let out a big "meh" when you put him in front of a game like Stalker, Amnesia, Penumbra, ArmA, Morrowind, first three Gothic games and so on.

It's all about accessibility to the market. That's why consoles are at fault, they made it possible for every one to game, as harsh and crazy as it may sound. You want your game to sell, you need to hit some "markers" along the line, some tested and retested mechanics which leads to minimal innovation if any. They invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars just in marketing (non of that goes into the improvement of the game) in order "to be heard" by the masses. In that case, you'll need to sell millions just to break even.

Now, compare that to Amnesia: The Dark Descent. They've sold around 300k, some on Steam sales, and only by that, their financial situation was ok, they could think ahead to their next project. Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead sold 4,5 million combined and it still went on consoles. Cervat Yerli, the CEO of Crytek, had dreams about competing with CoD and that is by it's own statement. In a way, the Crysis 2's presentation is now all to clear.

Oh, not to mention the rumors about EA and how about it's for sale because of bad revenue.

What I'm trying to point out, is the "dictatorship" of the majority. In a way, it is the same for movies, literature, music etc. Investors want results, they want more money, not a better product. A user/casual gamer, without high expectation would buy almost everything that is half good. Look at how much money CoD made every year just by adding DLC's to their main products, products that, in essence, are all the same from the forth installment until now. Gaming press it's almost not there, most of the time giving high points and fail/don't want to underline flaws.

Yes, consoles are easy to use and don't imply an upgrade (although you may end up paying more for a console and it's games than by upgrading your PC and buy games for it), but at the same point, is the reason for making "a worse day to game".

Of course there are fails on the PC as well; even ArmA 2 at it's release date was a bit of a fail, but team stood behind the game and fix it. Some major players out there would have just left it as it was: example - Flashpoint 2.

Yeah dayz on consoles will ruin the pc version, just like minecraft! Oh wait.....

It all depends on Hall's view of the game and how much they'll have to cut/optimize the engine in order to run on that older hardware.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Calin Banc

[MR GIGGIDY 0]

What's the big deal if it goes to consoles it will make more money and with more money better development.

[jblackrupert 308]

Here is the thing. If it ends up being like Minecraft I think that is totally acceptable.

Minecraft can run on 10+ year old hardware.

It didn't have to be dumbed down.

Pointing to Minecraft as an example doesn't make any sense.

[jstarkreborn 29]

•Wrong, PS3 is 6 years old, and both PS3 and Xbox 360 can run every game made nowadays. Proof that they are not outdated. Outdated wold mean that they cannot run it at all. And 100% + strongers.

I used to be a console gamer, got a pc that could handle gaming and I never looked back. Look at battlefield, graphics wise. Even on ALL of the lowest settings, it still looks better than console. Consoles are heavily outdated. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Any game made for consoles would have to be water-downed so it can handle it.

Besides, I don't know what rocket was thinking, how could consoles even play it? For one I use almost ever key for Arma. There isn't enough buttons on the controller to port it to consoles without having to remove a lot of mechanics.

Edited September 3, 2012 by jstarkreborn

[jblackrupert 308]

I used to be a console gamer, got a pc that could handle gaming and I never looked back. Look at battlefield, graphics wise. Even on ALL of the lowest settings, it still looks better than console. Consoles are heavily outdated. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Any game made for consoles would have to be water-downed so it can handle it.

You can't convince those idiots. They are like the morons who still claim that there is no visual difference between DVD and Blu-ray.

They are deaf, dumb and blind

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

I think it more likely they, BI, would hire an outside firm to make it. They currently do this for smaller projects right now, and doubt it would change.

Point in fact Rocket was rubbing hands with other companies out at these events he has been attending.

Another point, Why do something you don't know how to do when you can hire someone to do it for you?

/thread

Edited September 3, 2012 by katniss

[dutch_miller 159]

I love consoles but I understand pc to console games don't work out so well. I plan on playing DayZ on pc and I'll have fun playing State of Decay on 360.

[the horror 262]

If it comes out on console, and you don't want to play it on console, dont. it's as easy as that.

some people just prefer to play on console :)

that being said, Im not quite sure how this game would translate to the console :/

Edited September 3, 2012 by supanaut

[jblackrupert 308]

I think it more likely they, BI, would hire an outside firm to make it. They currently do this for smaller projects right now, and doubt it would change.

Point in fact Rocket was rubbing hands with other companies out at these events he has been attending.

Another point, Why do something you don't know how to do when you can hire someone to do it for you?

/thread

Rocket was working for console game developers before Bohemia and BIS ihas done it before and is doing so currently.

http://www.carriercommand.com

Operation Flashpoint: Elite (Xbox)

http://xbox.gamespy....t/670499p1.html

Edited September 3, 2012 by jblackrupert

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

OFP: Elite, was not a bad port, plus they did not Dumb Down ARMA for PC because of it.

They made it and dropped it it pretty much. But it had no effect on the ARMA series.

So point in their favor there.

Carrier Commander is a different division of BI from what I understand. Could be wrong though.

Again, I do not believe they would make that sacrifice, if they had done so in the past I might worry.

But until I see it otherwise, I will remain open to it.

[IncrediBurch 22]

To the OP:

I disagree with you. The "players" that you speak of play on all sorts of devices, including consoles and PCs. The "dumbed down" you speak, has nothing to do with actual game quality. Sure, the graphics do always take a hit from PC to console, but that's ok. Graphics capabilities naturally evolve over time. New games released on PS3 and Xbox 360 can't reach the current pinnacle of PC graphics, but they can still look damn fine.

You want Rocket and the team (aside, Team Rocket, LOL) to make as much money as possible? Then you better beg them to bring it to as many platforms as possible. They need to reach the audience on all fronts.

The poor long-term support you're talking about doesn't even affect you. You only play it on PC. This is exactly what your point boiled down to: "You aren't going to give the console version enough support, so don't make anything for the console at all." That's a terrible point. Even if you're line of thinking was that the PC versions would end up with less long-term support because there's a console version, you should complain to developer to give support, not say "don't bother at all so you can't partially disappoint people."

At the end you said that possibly bring it to next-gen consoles rather than current. Current gen consoles can handle this game. The technical issues can be worked out and the game could play just fine on Xbox 360, PS3, even Wii if they wanted it to. I understand you saying that perhaps holding it off until the next-gen would be your preference, that's fine. By the time they get the game to a point where they could do a retail release, the next-gen systems would probably be there only choice.

Don't kid yourself into thinking you have a valid point for requesting Day Z not be brought to consoles. There isn't a good reason not to. Just don't buy the console version if you don't want it. They'd make it regardless our opinions because we're not the audience they be trying to selling that version to.

[hombrecz 832]

Since consoles have shitloads of exclusive games, why should not PC have some?

DayZ is perfect example of PC only game, wast map, lots of players and not dumbed down gameplay.

As OP has stated, Crysis series became absolute garbage after they moved to consoles.

I believed their lies and bought Crysis 2 only to get weak console port which got hires textures some month after release!

If DayZ should become Crysis 2 fiasco, I would curse Rocket and never buy anything that he has made and probably also boycot Bohemia Interactive which I have considered lonely beacon of PC playing.