Re: "OUR VISUAL BAR IS BASED ON THE 360." Steven Polge regarding UT3

On Sep 12, 6:16 pm, slayerma...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No one is debating that, but the fact remains that the number of
single player hours is not even going to be close to the number of
online hours, are you actually trying to debate that?

Are you assuming that every person who bought Halo 2 a) played the
Xbox Live multiplayer mode and furthermore b) played it more than the
single player mode?

Most people who bought Halo 2 did NOT play the online multiplayer mode
because a relatively small number of people actually subscribed to
Xbox Live.

The stats that you reference for Halo 2 only account for people who
played the Halo 2 multiplayer mode on Xbox Live. There's no way to
actually track the single-player mode or offline multiplayer mode.

I believe you can also play Counter-strike single-player or offline
but really who's going to do that when you can play online as long as
you have an Internet connection? On the flipside, even if you had an
Internet connection, it's more likely than not that you did not play
Halo 2 on Xbox Live because of the greater speed requirements (you
don't need a broadband connection to play Counter-strike) and the cost
of Xbox Live.

No, I say most popular strictly based off how many people have been
playing it daily and how many are still playing it daily.

I know what you're trying to say but you can't make a definitive
argument that Counter-strike is the most popular FPS based on
statistics that entirely exclude a very significant amount of data.

That's why I said there was a difference. You can't possibly prove
that it's the most popular FPS game period because nobody has
statistics on how much the offline, untrackable modes of a game like
Halo 2 were.

Do you honestly think that's going to make a difference? If we are
talking about strict hours, CS wins by a long shot. If we are talking
about hours in comparision to how long the game has existed, you do
realize your talking about a game that is played 24/7 by well over a
few million people right?

Show me a statistic that says that over a few million people play the
game 24/7.

Of course you need to. All you have right now is data supporting that
Counter-strike is the most played online FPS game. It's not even a
full game, it's just a mod of a full game, and you don't have to pay
for it, even today.

If you don't have to pay for it, then why are you asking me for sales
statistics?

Because someone who pays for it is likely to play it more than someone
who gets it for free.

No, you don't need to pay money on top of Half Life, because you don't
need Half Life to play CS, unless you use the mod. I WILL PROBABLY SAY
THIS A FEW TIMES: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID RETAIL COUNTERSTRIKE
SERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR STEAM ACCOUNT YOU CANNOT PLAY CS THROUGH
STEAM. Third party mods show up as third party mods. CS shows up as a
game.

If you have Half-Life with a valid Half-Life CD key, you can install
the Counter-strike 1.6 mod on top of that and play Counter-strike 1.6
with other people playing Counter-strike, regardless of whether
they're using the Half-Life mod or the standalone product, without
having to pay any additional costs directly related to Counter-strike.
In other words, beyond your initial investment in Half-Life, you are
out no other money.

BTW... I just referred to it as Valve's network because Valve owns it.

You really didn't need to clarify that.

Actually, I did because I was talking about Steam and when I said
"Valve network" you immediately assumed I was talking about what Valve
used for online play BEFORE the arrival of Steam.

One shot kills started on the PC long before that, you have no idea
what you're talking about if you think Rainbow Six was the first PC
game to have one shot kills. Hexen had one shot kills. Doom had one
shot kills, even the lame pistol could toast you in four shots. The
point is, in recent popular console FPS games, you get hit and chill
for a second and then you're golden. Unreal games are not like this.

I'm talking about one-shot kills based on locational damage (in the
case of Goldeneye 64 where a headshot killed you immediately) or with
common weapons. Many games prior to Rainbow Six had one-shot kills
with certain weapons (for example a direct hit from a rocket launcher
in Doom when you didn't have any power-ups). In Rainbow Six, if you
were hit with pretty much ANY weapon, you almost always died, and if
you didn't, you were dead with the next hit.

Correction: PS3 gamers who like to play FPS games will snatch it up.

Or maybe everyone who wants to have the first AAA PS3 title?

A lot of people would say that Resistance is the first triple A PS3
title. I have no reason to disagree with that. Virtua Fighter 5 is
also a triple A title. You could argue that it's only for people who
like fighting games but then you'd have to accept that Unreal
Tournament 3 is only for people who like first-person shooters.

Xbox 360 gamers will snatch it up as well. You continue to assume that
most people only play 1 game at a time.

Buying a game the second it comes out when you are still entertained
by another is just plain stupid. Have you ever waited for a review to
buy a game?

How is buying a game when you're still entertained by another plain
stupid? Just because you don't like to play more than 1 game at a time
doesn't mean nobody else does. What's "just plain stupid" is you
making a broad comment like that. I could just as easily say that
playing Counter-strike when you can play Halo 2 online is just plain
stupid and it would be as asinine a statement as the one you just
made.

I buy more than 1 game at a time quite a lot because I want to be able
to experience each of the games as soon as possible. Even if I'm
thoroughly entertained by a game, I usually can't spend endless hours
playing just that one game, ESPECIALLY if we're talking about an
online multiplayer mode, which generally lacks substance when compared
to a single-player mode.

I know plenty of people who think both ways.

I almost always read reviews before buying a game. Most games are
reviewed before they even hit retail. What does that have to do with
it?

That's just a matter of the delivery system and it's more an issue
with Xbox Live's restrictions. A lot of the legwork there is going to
be done by Microsoft - Microsoft wants this game on their system so
they'll figure out a way to allow for fan content... IF Epic decides
to include it with the Xbox 360 version.

A lot of legwork? That's a nice way of saying that Microsoft created a
stupid problem for future games and are now being so extremely helpful
as to find a way out of it.

There's nothing stupid about what Microsoft did. Tell me how many
console games in the past allowed for fan-created content that would
actually be interesting for other players? There's no real reason for
Microsoft to leave their system wide open and now they're simply
making an exception to get this one particular game added to their
software library.

Yea, maybe because development costs was a minute point and then you
idiots jumped all over it? We are STILL talking about that.

a) If you want to start resorting to name-calling, I can call you a
stupid idiot retard moron *** face for all the asinine statements
you've made here, but what would be the point?

b) The reason we're "STILL talking about that" is because you keep at
it.

Correct, there was no point in bringing it up until now. I am just
getting sick and tired of hearing 'Oh the 360 is sooo much better for
development'. Nothing involving money is easy when Microsoft is
calling the shots.

The Xbox 360 *IS* much better for development:

a) The architecture isn't flawless, of course, but it's much easier to
work with than the PS3's.
b) The PS3 uses a brand new processor technology which brings with it
a whole new set of development challenges.
c) Most developers have produced games on the PC at one point or
another and the 360 is pretty close to the PC in architecture whereas
the PS3 is worlds away.

You may not like it, but that's just the reality of the situation.

Besides, from the beginning the 360 was getting it later due to a
timed exclusive deal with Sony.

WRONG. In the beginning, the Xbox 360 was not getting it at all. It
wasn't until about a year after they even announced the game that they
decided to create a version for the Xbox 360 because Microsoft's
system was selling so much better.

The timed exclusive deal with Sony didn't even come into play THEN. It
was only made a few months ago when Sony donated a nice chunk of
change to their coffers.

That's a total laugh. Everyone knows that Xbox live is vastly better
network than the ghastly contraption Sony uses. Everyone knows that
it's easier to develop games on the 360. The problem here is that
Microsoft is trying to find a way to charge people a premium for user
content.

So wait a minute... above you said that it's NOT easier to develop
games for the 360 and now you're saying it is? Make up your mind
already!

Who said anything about Microsoft charging for the user-created
content?

That remains to be seen. The developers of Lair and Warhawk said the
Sixaxis controller worked beautifully with their games and look what
happened... Sony's now sending reviewers a guide on how to "properly"
review Lair (i.e. not give it a 4.5 out of 10).

Imagine that! Incognito and Factor 5 totally screwed up an important
aspect of a game? NO WAY. Epic is no where NEAR the caliber of those
mighty developers.

I have no idea about Incognito but Factor 5 is recognized as one of
the leading development houses in the industry. You can't even make
the argument that they're venturing outside of their usual genre...
the game is still at heart the same type of game as their Star Wars
games.

After hearing 2 studios make claims that were later proven to be
complete garbage, I'm not taking anything for granted regarding the
Sixaxis controller.

The only problem being worked out is how fan content could work with
the 360. That's the central cause of the delay on the Xbox 360
version.

Fan content is what gives UT games longevity.

Console gamers and PC gamers are different breeds of beast. Most
console gamers do not play games months or years later. There's always
something bigger and better around the corner. Longevity is not
necessarily a concern here.

You said that the best maps are those that fans make after the game
has been out for a while (a little while implies not long after the
game comes out which is just not true). That statement underlines a
key difference between PC gamers and console gamers...

Every Unreal Editor comes standard equipped with backwards
compatibility, as in I will be able to load a map I made for UT2004 in
UT3's new editor. Fan based content is ALREADY OUT. Mods may be a
problem, but I already have a few maps I've made and hundreds of maps
others have made specifically for UT3. I already know my favorite is
going to be the CTF map where the flags are just on top of two giant
mountains. Hello hoverboard.

And this has what to do with the console version of the game?

PC gamers can still be playing a game 2 or 3 years after its release.
Console gamers have too many viable alternatives to play the game for
more than a month or two most of the time. Console gamers never had
the ability to play things such as "user mods" or "user-made maps" so
there was never a reason to continue playing after a while. This is a
new idea for console gamers and so will probably not take off the
first time it's introduced.

Console gamers have too many viable alternatives? That MUST be a typo.
Last I checked it was PC's that had the library of quite literally a
million times as many games as 360.

Most of which are utter crap. How many top-tier games that are going
to appeal to a broad slice of the customer base come out in a
reasonable window of time for the PC?

PC gamers tend to be much more dedicated to a particular game or
franchise than console gamers, in part because console gamers aren't
used to having longevity in their games. You beat one, you move on to
the next one. Maybe you play the online game a bit but you're going to
move on to the next best thing. A PC gamer may play Counter-strike,
Unreal or whatever exclusively for a year or even more than that.

PC Gears is only about a year after Xbox 360 Gears. That's pretty good
considering it's harder to port to PC from console than the other way
around (too many configurations you have to account for). Who said
anything about necessarily releasing at the exact same time?

Because work on the PC version didn't even start until after the 360
version became a hit. By your logic they should have just released
them at the same time, using your exact words, but they didn't. It's
not free money to port a game, they wanted to be sure the game would
be liked before they even decided they were going to port it.

There's a key difference between the situations surrounding Gears of
War and Unreal Tournament 3. With Unreal Tournament 3, they were
already developing a console version. It's not like they had the PC
version and then were wrestling with the idea of porting to the
consoles. You keep ignoring this one very key aspect of the situation.

If you're going to create a PC version and a PS3 version, there's
absolutely no reason to NOT make an Xbox 360 version and release it in
the same time frame unless something blocks you (the fan content
issue) or someone pays you (the timed exclusive deal).

Your contention is that there's no reason to release an Xbox 360
version and that doing so costs a lot more than it actually does.

You're not necessarily correct with the "massively higher amount of
potential customers," either. I doubt Epic would want to reduce the
visual quality of the game too much so the market will be restricted
to gamers with higher-end gaming systems. Hell, even most higher-end
gaming rigs nowadays can't match the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Why would you even say this? You JUST said in a different thread what
I am going to say to your now; graphics that scale backwards to the
point of being terrible is one of the most important aspects of a PC
game, not just for lower end PC's as you think, but for multitasking
as well.

If you're going to quote me, then actually quote me because I know I
never said anything like that.

Perhaps you're referring to my statement earlier in this thread where
I said that one of the reasons why Counter-strike is so popular is
because the graphics are primitive enough that even the lowest end PCs
can play the game very well?

In any case, there's only so far you go with scaling your graphics
back. What point would there be to putting out Unreal Tournament 3
where you could play it on a $299 PC but it would look like absolute
crap? Much of the point of the "next generation" of Unreal Tournament
is better graphics for a more realistic experience. That would be like
a company programming their Xbox 360 game so that it could work on an
Xbox as well... why?

Back to your earlier statement... if you eliminate people who don't
have a reasonably good video card... or even a standalone video card
at all... you're eliminating most PC owners. The percentage of PC
owners who actually have decent graphics cards that could play Unreal
Tournament 3 is not that big so you don't have a "massively higher
amount of potential customers" on the PC.

It's not hard to make graphics scale backwards, the game would just be
a little bigger to account for some lower polygon count models (which
can be done automatically in any 3D editing software). The lighting,
shading and all the other stuff can be set up to turn off incredibly
easy. Epic has ALWAYS included these things in PC games.

To a degree. Epic's games haven't always been playable on the worst
possible machines around at the time.

What are you smoking? The only reason the PS3 was the console to work
on was because of the massive success of the PS2. Now that it's
painfully obvious that the PS3 is still very far behind the Xbox 360
in terms of market penetration, it's clear that the Xbox 360 is the
console they should be most concerned about because they have much
more potential to make money there.

Yea, you're complete right about making money with the 360, but if
user content can't be released for it then the game will not have the
longevity that makes UT games 10/10.

I'll say it one more time... console gamers are not accustomed to user
content and so will not have much of a problem with the lack of it.
Once you start having more and more games that should have the ability
to add user content, gamers may start caring more about it.

Most Xbox 360 owners would be content with free map packs released by
Epic to improve the longevity of the game.

Also, the PS3 is MUCH harder to develop on than the Xbox 360. It was
possible to make the user-created content software on the PS3 because
Microsoft is much more strict on what you can do with the system, but
the actual development is crap on the PS3.

I never disagreed with that. The point is, Microsoft IS strict with
what you can do and if it continues to be like that, then user content
for the 360 will never happen. Like I said before, user content gives
game longevity. I would really hate to see UT3 get less than a 10 on
ANY system it's released for.

Why would you assume that it would get a 10 even with user-created
content? Their past games didn't score like that.

Haha -- "kicking around ideas" is NOT development and never has been.
When you're just sitting back and "kicking around ideas" you're so far
ahead of development it's not even a dot on the horizon.

I'm not talking about basic ideas, I am talking about weapons,
vehicles, maps, game modes and everything else the game is built on.

LOL - You mean like the weapons they've had since the first
incarnation of Unreal Tournament? Saying that you have an idea for a
new weapon or a new game mode is not necessarily development. It's
part of the game creation process, sure, as much as writing a one-line
premise on a cocktail napkin is part of the moviemaking process, but
it's not part of the development cycle.

The hoverboard was mentioned quite a few times on the UT2004 forums
long before the game was even announced and it got a largely popular
response. Believe it or not, a gun that fires through walls was
brought up and got shot down pretty quick. I am not saying anyone on
those forums had a direct influence over what was decided for UT3
(apart from the Epic staff, of course) but concept art, a few maps and
many other things and ideas existed long before the game was
announced.

Still not *NECESSARILY* part of development. You clearly have no idea
how development works.

If they don't amount to anything, which would be the case, then yes,
that is just talk. The reason I used the term 'kicking around ideas'
is because the conversations on those forums were more like a bunch of
friends hanging out than a developer saying 'this is how things are
going to be, tough luck'.

Even if an idea leads to something that will be in the game, it's not
*NECESSARILY* part of the development cycle.

Once you start focusing those ideas into viable concepts, you MAYBE
are starting development, but real development doesn't start until
you've actually decided what game you're going to be making and
started specing out how it's going to be done.

Concepts like maybe a hoverboard? Concepts like maybe new modes of
play? Concepts like maybe a single player system that's more than just
a ladder progression?

Exactly. These ideas *COULD* have formed during the development cycle
but the birth of these ideas is not *NECESSARILY* a part of the
development cycle.

Hell, you can be kicking around ideas and not even be in the planning
stage of the game yet.

You probably should have asked for examples of kicking around ideas
before you opened your mouth and now must insert your foot.

ROTFLMAO

You give yourself WAY too much credit. Not a single thing you have
said shows that development of Unreal Tournament 3 began back when
these ideas were first born.

LOL - are you even in the software development industry?

Irrelevant.

Translation: You have no idea how software development works and thus
should not make yourself out to be some fountain of knowledge on the
subject.

That's not what you said. You said that spending an additional dollar
on development makes it one dollar more foolish and so forth. Reread
your statement... you said specifically that the spending of the money
was the foolish part.

Spending an addition dollar on development and releasing the game
early IS wasting that dollar, as it could have had a higher return
elsewhere. Spending more is wasting more. That's not difficult to
understand.

There you go again. If that additional dollar has to be spent
regardless of when the game is released, how is it a waste at one
point in time and not a waste a couple of months later? You make
absolutely no sense.

And you continue to claim that the reason they delayed the Xbox 360
version was to not compete with Halo 3, which is just not true.

If you deny the two are related, you are blind.

The ONLY reason the game can't come out now is the fan content issue.
The ONLY reason Epic didn't release the game in November without the
fan content aspect is because Sony paid for the game to be a timed
exclusive. Halo 3 has ZERO to do with it.

You can continue to tell yourself that you're right if it makes you
feel any better about yourself. Of course, if you want to actually
make anyone believe that you have any clue what you're talking about,
you'll find a link that will actually have someone at Epic saying that
they didn't want to compete with Halo 3.

If you invest $1000 in the stock market and get back $2000, was it
foolish for you to invest any portion of that money? And don't pull
something out of left field like "well, if my grandmother was sick and
needed the money..."

If there was somehow a known blue chip stock that would increase
threefold in value, then yes it was foolish and you should have
invested there.

What?!

Who said I wasn't investing the blue chip stock? LOL

You don't understand this because you don't understand the original
statement.

If I didn't understand the original statement, it's because you have a
HUGE problem conveying your ideas.

And how could you possibly know that a blue chip stock is going to
increase threefold in value without having insider information? At
least keep this somewhat within the realm of possibility.

It's obvious the game will sell better being released later. That
would be the blue chip stock ($3000). Selling it early would get you a
lower amount of money ($2000). Analogues aren't meant to be 'in the
realm of possibility, as a matter of fact it's quite the opposite.
Would you be upset if someone said it was 'raining cats and dogs'?

What the hell is an analogue? I'll assume you mean "analogy."

You do realize that "raining cats and dogs" is a METAPHOR, not an
analogy. The metaphor "raining cats and dogs" has nothing to do, in
any way, shape or form, with the stock market analogy.

In any case, it's not obvious that the game will sell better being
released later. People purchase less during the first half of the year
because the holidays have passed. This applies to almost every
industry and does not exclude games, and the video game companies know
this.

While Unreal Tournament 3 may have competition from Halo 3 in November
and December, sales are more likely to be higher during this time
period because it's the holiday season. Who said the person buying the
game had to be the same person playing the game? This also speaks to
your contention about buying more than 1 game - if you're getting
these games as gifts, you're not buying anything, and you're probably
getting gifts from more than 1 person.

If you're able to release in November, you get the holiday season when
people spend the most money by far. As it stands, they're releasing in
early 2008 (March or later) so they lose out on a lot of spending
right there.

Nice flipflop John Kerry, you just said they were going to pick it up
no matter what.

When did I say anybody was picking anything up no matter what? Stop
reading only what you want to read and not what's actually there.

Epic is releasing the game in early 2008 and will lose out on holiday
sales. Pretty simple.

Halo was BUILT for the console.

Completely irrelevant. Halo shows that you CAN have a great first-
person shooter on consoles. The problem with the earlier attempts at
shooters was the control scheme, which Halo nailed down.

I don't even think it's a good series.

You're entitled to your opinion.

It has nothing new to me, and is pretty bland and extremely slow
paced. Have you ever even played an Unreal game?

I've played every one on both PC and Xbox. The first Unreal Tournament
was one of the only games that drew me in for a lengthy period of
time. When it first came out, I played about 6 or 7 hours a day every
day for a couple of months. Not many games did that to me.

I also loved the original Unreal game, but it wasn't as good as Halo
as far as concepts, storyline, etc.

Unreal Tournament games don't even have a real storyline.

.