Food for thought about the PS4 from Chris Roberts - Star Citizen

[MACADEMIC]

Hi,

 

A perfect outline of priorities and requirements for rolling out SC on the PS4. Perhaps a model for IL2 BoS? Jason, if you read, what's your take on his comments?

 

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/76653/star-citizen-pc-ps4-and-consoles

 

MAC

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

They also have $42 million. You really need to give porting this title to PS4 a rest. They don't have a large enough team to do it, and they don't have even close to the funds RSI does. Not to mention the target audience on PS4 is Wings of Prey/War Thunder arcade than what BoS is going for.

 

Additionally, it would be far easier to go to Xbox One due to it's OS being based on Windows.

Edited April 12, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[MACADEMIC]

Your comment makes me doubt you have read the linked post. Maybe you should, it's very informative. It could serve as an outline for a possible port of IL2 BoS to the PS4, nothwithstanding who would eventually be doing this (e.g. third party as Jason has earlier on mentioned).

 

On the question of a market for the title on that platform, I don't agree with your equation that console automatically equals arcade. From Chris Roberts' point of view, which I share, it can be seen as just a mid class PC, for a very good price. Nothing wrong at all with widening IL2 BoS' reach, under those guidelines. This is to say that PC always remains the driving platform.

 

MAC

Edited April 12, 2014 by MACADEMIC

[MACADEMIC]

Chris Roberts also says that because of all the hoops you need to jump through, to get additional content like patches and DLC published/distributed, he's not keen on porting.

 

 

In all likeliness Sony is willing to oblige with the demands, MS not so: http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/08/22/gamescom-2013-star-citizen-could-come-to-playstation-4-xbox-one-out-of-the-question/

 

MAC

[johncage]

getting a sim onto the console is not financially viable. end of story.

 

it's also one of the most unnecessary things in gaming considering you are porting a game from an environment where it thrives to an environment where it would be dead.

[DickDong]

I thing the PS community is a different gaming dynamic.  Lots of twitch gamers would need it to be literally dogfights alone.  I think it would be an unecessary use of resources until the commercial success of the PC platform is proven.

[MACADEMIC]

...until the commercial success of the PC platform is proven.

 

A clear pre-requirement for adding another platform. I'm optimistic the success of IL2-BOS on the PC will drive this expansion. Claims of non-viability at this point are not based on empirical evidence.

 

MAC

[FuriousMeow]

Your comment makes me doubt you have read the linked post. Maybe you should, it's very informative. It could serve as an outline for a possible port of IL2 BoS to the PS4, nothwithstanding who would eventually be doing this (e.g. third party as Jason has earlier on mentioned).

 

On the question of a market for the title on that platform, I don't agree with your equation that console automatically equals arcade. From Chris Roberts' point of view, which I share, it can be seen as just a mid class PC, for a very good price. Nothing wrong at all with widening IL2 BoS' reach, under those guidelines. This is to say that PC always remains the driving platform.

 

MAC

 

No, I don't care to read the article because I don't care about this title going to consoles. I care about this title staying PC, so that all resources are dedicated to PC and that it doesn't get watered down like the console version of Il2 (Wings of Prey). I paid money for the PC version of this. It's a small team and any other platforms require either a larger team, or diverting resources. Both cause loss of focus, questionable financial returns, and diluted efforts. Even DayZ's future on console is questionable at best, they still have to get it working on PCs. Of course Dean Hall wants it on Consoles, because he thinks it'll gain him more money - not realizing what it does to the development cycle, the overhead it causes and the drain on resources it inevitably presents. Case in point - Battlefield 3 and 4. They SUCK compared to Battlefield 2, because they had to be co-developed for consoles. I played BF2 for over two years. I've played BF3 and 4 combined less than 6 months. Consoles suck the life and joy out of games that were previously PC only. The number of people that will care for a sim on a console are slim to none, just the same as the number of players that want to use joysticks in War Thunder's arcade mode. Mouse aim only, joystick users are a dead breed there because actually simming is too hard. Going to console is a guaranteed death sentence for any simulation.

 

War Thunder will be on consoles soon enough, just enjoy that one.

Edited April 12, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[johncage]

A clear pre-requirement for adding another platform. I'm optimistic the success of IL2-BOS on the PC will drive this expansion. Claims of non-viability at this point are not based on empirical evidence.

 

MAC

 

empirical evidence is only needed when the conclusion isn't already obvious.

[MACADEMIC]

No, I don't care to read the article because I don't care about this title going to consoles.

 

That's what I thought. No need to read the rest of your comments in this case.

 

MAC

[DD_bongodriver]

Angry puss is right, what is the point of a flight sim on a console, I can think of nothing worse than the idea of playing a 'flight sim' on a game pad, it's just arcade bollox.

But it is just a matter of time before we have little choice, the "flight sim community" seem hell bent on killing the PC simulation market.

[Feathered_IV]

At first glance, the idea of a playstation version certainly does seem wasteful and absurd.   But the more I think about it though the more it seems time consuming, expensive and unprofitable (as well as wasteful and absurd).

[Cybermat47]

I don't have a problem with consoles (I actually love them), but I honestly can't think of anyone who would want to play a serious sim game on a console.

[Revvin]

No, I don't care to read the article because I don't care about this title going to consoles.

If you're going to keep responding to his thread then the very least you could do is read the linked article. If you did you'd see Chris Roberts posting what amounts to a celebration of PC gaming and clearly stating he has no intention of doing the things you commented about i.e.. Gimping control methods, restricting features to ones that will work on a console, holding back graphics and physics to suit another platform. He goes on to wax lyrical about his love of PC hardware, the new API from AMD, Oculus Rift and why the marches in PC technology will always mean the PC is No.1. He goes on to say that the only way Star Citizen would go to the consoles is by significant financial input from one of the platform holders, namely Sony as they chased him to provide dev kits which is what sparked of community debate there because a kit was seen in the background during a video blog.

[Cybermat47]

So, even with a $42 million budget behind him, Chris Roberts has no plans to port his game to PS4.

That should speak volumes about the likelihood of BoS being ported to PS4.

Why does everybody only ask about BoS being ported to PS4? My inner Xbox fanboy is very angry.

 

But then again, I don't see the point of porting BoS to console. I love consoles, but simulators and consoles don't mix. War Thunder and it's predecessors falls into the 'sort-of simulator' genre, so they do work on console.

Edited April 13, 2014 by [AJSA]_Cybermat47

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I don't have a problem with consoles (I actually love them), but I honestly can't think of anyone who would want to play a serious sim game on a console.

 

Actually there are people who would (I know one or two), the thing is they can justify buing PS4 or XBoxOne for playing games but not necessarily gaming pc. And remember also that you can get joystick and pedals (and motion tracker) for consols. There is no reason why it couldn't be done properly. If it is smart financially, I don't know. But luckily that's not for us to decide.

[Bassly]

I would like a Game Boy port too.

[Revvin]

I would like a Game Boy port too.

 

Wait your turn! its the ZX-81 port next!

[Classical]

I don't have a problem with consoles (I actually love them), but I honestly can't think of anyone who would want to play a serious sim game on a console.

You mean like the racing sim Gran Turismo, the number one selling franchise on the Playstation?

 

Well, I am a console-only gamer, and a lover of flight sims (serious only), and I've come here to praise Macademic, not to bury him.  I admire the courage it takes to come on a PC flight sim forum and ask these questions, and I've come here to respond because they are questions that I've wanted to know the answers to myself.

 

With the convergence of technology between the PC and the current generation consoles (PS4, XB1), many people have been wondering whether game genres that have been previously been mostly on PC will make their way to consoles.  Why? Because last generation (PS3,XB360) there were over 160 million consoles sold, and forecasts for the current generation's sales are at least equal to that. So, unlike the Game Boy and ZX-81, it is potentially a very viable and lucrative market for PC ports.

 

In response to concerns about his game, Chris Roberts wrote a well-reasoned response on why a console port would be made and the circumstances in which it would occur. Since this response is relevant to the to the question of porting PC games to consoles in general, and flight sims in particular, Macademic posted it here.  As a console gamer I think Chis's approach to the problem makes sense: The PC would be the lead platform, the console version would be a port of the PC version and would not handicap it in any way, and the console port would only be made if it was financially viable.  This seems reasonable to me and I wonder what threat this would pose to PC gamers?

 

Now, regarding financial viability, as far as Il-2: Battle of Stalingrad is concerned, I'm not asking any PC gamer to subsidize my gaming.  I'll pay my own way, just like you have.  If, in the future, Jason decides to open a pre-order for a console port of IL-2:BOS, I'll probably be next in line behind Macademic to give him my money, with the understanding that the port wouldn't occur unless the financial goals are reached.

 

Chris Roberts has realized that there is another potential viable market for his game, and has laid out a plan by which that market can be accessed. If this plan can be implemented for flight sims, where a financially viable port could be made without harming the PC game, what's the problem with adding more flight simmers to the community?

[MACADEMIC]

Thanks Classical, just to clarify, I am a founder of the PC version with an interest in the technical capabilities of the new consoles. Chris Roberts has nailed it for me with his comment, hopefully exemplary for other devs to follow.

 

MAC

[FuriousMeow]

If you're going to keep responding to his thread then the very least you could do is read the linked article. If you did you'd see Chris Roberts posting what amounts to a celebration of PC gaming and clearly stating he has no intention of doing the things you commented about i.e.. Gimping control methods, restricting features to ones that will work on a console, holding back graphics and physics to suit another platform. He goes on to wax lyrical about his love of PC hardware, the new API from AMD, Oculus Rift and why the marches in PC technology will always mean the PC is No.1. He goes on to say that the only way Star Citizen would go to the consoles is by significant financial input from one of the platform holders, namely Sony as they chased him to provide dev kits which is what sparked of community debate there because a kit was seen in the background during a video blog.

 

I know what the article says, I did read it. I was being facetious and discrediting because MACADEMIC doesn't care about what the article says - all he sees is potential support for a console and hence why this topic is here. Chris Roberts is a PC gamer and SC is for the PC. His starting lines for SC are about PC gaming's demise being exaggerated. My replies aren't about SC or the article because that's not what MACADEMIC has ever cared about, he simply wants to press for a console port. This isn't the first time he's done it. My points make sense, it doesn't matter if you bring in a separate team and they bring the funding - the current team has to stop work on the PC version in order to work with the new team brought in for the port. Read my points, you'll see that I touch on the points of team dilution, loss of focus, and diversion - because even the current team has to at least slow down work, if not stop it, to explain and bring the porting team up-to-date on the current programming and technologies used.

 

MACADEMIC doesn't care about the article, he cares about porting this to what is truly a second rate system to the PC.

Edited April 13, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[MACADEMIC]

Hard to see why some people come running foaming at their mouth to comment on a 'Free Subject' topic that supposedly doesn't concern them, some not even bothering to read the linked file. And, the topic is Chris Roberts' statement which certainly hasn't been discussed here before.

 

MAC

[Bassly]

And, the topic is Chris Roberts' statement which certainly hasn't been discussed here before.

 

Perhaps a model for IL2 BoS? Jason, if you read, what's your take on his comments?

 

Don't blame them...

[Rama]

Is it really such a hot subject?

Closing it now. Next time you discuss about games PC and consoles, keep it cool.