Right on. I really don't know anything about those games apart from the fact that they're the genre I don't play. lol That said, I find it hard to believe they're actually so dissimilar in scope and production value. Does BF4 really have more than double the content of Shadow Fall? CoD really has so much more content that after starting with a studio nearly twice the size, they needed to add four additional studios do complete it all? Again, I don't pay close attention to these games, but when KZ gets slammed, it seems it's always because of sluggish controls, boring gameplay, and other things which can't be clearly defined. "Only a third of the content of BF/CoD" seems like an easy jab, but this is the first I've heard it mentioned.
Yeah, like I said, I'm not sure what MS employees actually do. Maybe they use the "monkeys at a typewriter" strategy for coding. Again, it seems unlikely that H4 had nearly triple the content of KZ3, which was made by 125 people.
lol So, the only evidence you'll accept is a developer publicly complaining about the need to support their users? That seems to be a bit of a wild goose chase. How about chubbs saying that multi-platform support is indeed a significant undertaking in terms of effort and complexity? Does that count for anything? Seems there were other devs in his thread agreeing as well.
I see what you're saying, but that would also mean that XB3 had shipped considerably more than 4M, which doesn't seem particularly likely either, given their shipments in the first three quarters. Maybe PS3 sales are dropping faster because "PlayStation users" are more likely to go ahead and buy the new one instead, and "XBox users" not so much?
Yeah, unless it comes out at- or near-launch, I'm not sure DLC should be counted, since as you say, it's typically created after the fact. Regardless, multi-plat (and MS) teams strike me as excessively large. Maybe Sony devs are just magically efficient. /shrug
Maybe their Gen7 console just died, and the PS3 owners said, "No sense not getting the PS4," and XB2 owners said, "meh Guess I'll just get another 360." My sister was gonna get a PS3 for her 5yo son last Christmas, until I told her she'd be better off getting the PS4 instead, since it was a decade newer and was only about $100 more. Maybe people looking at the 360 didn't reach the same decision about the Bone.
Sorry, it's just easier to type and less nonsensical than the actual names. Is it really difficult to figure out what an "XB3" is? =/
I was just tossing out scenarios. It's likely a combination of factors. Someone was saying that the XB2 still does good business in developing markets as a piracy box, which isn't the case for the PS3. That would help to shift the needle as well, I'd imagine.
Also good points. There are all sorts of reasons a drop in PS3 shipments wouldn't imply a similar drop in XB2 shipments. Makes a good excuse for arguing XB3 shipments are even higher though, I suppose.
I appreciate that. To be clear, I also appreciate a vigorous debate. I do not appreciate lies designed to discredit me, or lies of any kind, really. If you wish to debate me in the future, I would appreciate it if you tried to restrict yourself to responding only to statements I've actually made. Calm and respectful are optional, but also appreciated. <3
.I was looking at XB3 XB3 shipments in the first half of the year, when they were shipping an average of 850k/quarter to Tier 1. In Q3, they shipped twice that amount to help cover the Tier 2 launch. However, if T2 was set to double the demand for their product, I see no reason for them to wait a year to launch there. Seems like they'd wanna double their sales ASAP, no? I thought my estimate of 3.5M in Q4 was generous because it doubled their already doubled demand, and the promos were only happening in the US/UK. Then I laughingly said, "But hey, it's MS the kings of over-shipping, so maybe they even shipped 4.5M.Serversurfer I actually agree after I got over the initial shock factor of 360 out shipping PS3 by 2:1. My prediction for the XB1 shipments was always 11.5-12 even before we got numbers and I don't think they shipped more than that. Maybe 12.5 million as an "optimistic" guess as they say
" Shipping 5M+ seems even less likely, but hey, it's MS.Someone mentioned that XB2 does good business in developing markets as a piracy box. That doesn't apply to the PS3, so that would help explain the difference.
Sorry, I was referring to this exchange:
Honestly, I'm more inclined to believe your interpretation of NPD/GFK than Microsoft's.
Burn me or others enough times, and you may get downgraded too.
I was looking at XB3 XB3 shipments in the first half of the year, when they were shipping an average of 850k/quarter to Tier 1. In Q3, they shipped twice that amount to help cover the Tier 2 launch. However, if T2 was set to double the demand for their product, I see no reason for them to wait a year to launch there. Seems like they'd wanna double their sales ASAP, no? I thought my estimate of 3.5M in Q4 was generous because it doubled their already doubled demand, and the promos were only happening in the US/UK. Then I laughingly said, "But hey, it's MS the kings of over-shipping, so maybe they even shipped 4.5M.
ntkrnl said:
Sure, and a good number of those countries were scheduled to launch Nov. 2013, but it seems the pre-orders indicated to MS that it wasn't worth their time. They instead focused on markets where they were actually likely to move stock, like in Spain where they managed to sell 35k by spending 570 in advertising per unit sold.
You should watch there development documentary for Halo 5. They get stuff done there. Also, Halo has a lot of content...It always has a epic campaign with super high production values, Multiplayer with Arena style, and BTB style of play, and multiple gametypes off of that. It has Forge mode, and Theater mode, as well as a Cooperative firefight mode (or spartan opps), not to mention all the features like custom games, 4 player split screen, system link support, Spartan customization, and campaign scoring.
I never said that. Please don't take my words out of context.
I might. Can I have a link to the thread?
Here you go, and the relevant quote from the OP (emphasis mine):
Now, he's talking specifically about indy games, obviously, but the issues he describes scale with the scope and complexity of the game itself, just as the team size does. So if it's too much of a burden for two dudes working on their two-man game, then it's too much of a burden for 150 dudes working on their 150-man game. If you have unlimited resources, you can just throw more bodies at the problem, but like I said, while that can increase your overall profits, it can also greatly reduce your margins. So, make or break; there's much less chance of recovering from a failure, because you've invested so much more in to it. Hence, annualized franchises that don't take a lot of risks.
Because people don't really buy it for the campaign anymore
And as I said earlier, depending on the game in question and the tools being used, a smaller game can actually be easier to port, because it's that much more likely that the "Also build for XBox" button will actually work. If your game is a bare bones Tetris clone, then sure, you may be able to hit four or five targets with a single piece of code, assuming you get lucky with your middleware. But the more features you add, and the more complex those features are, the more likely the improvement will break the other version, which then needs to be fixed by hand, delaying both versions by however long that takes. If you want to move outside the scope of your middleware and implement a custom solution for something, then you'll need a custom solution for the other platform as well. As I said, all of this has the effect of limiting game design, because in effect, developers are actively punished for nearly every improvement they try to make. As development time drags on and costs rise, the motivation to say, "Fuck it; that's good enough," becomes that much stronger. As a gamer, do you want to play This Is Good Enough: The Compromise?
Here you're basically arguing that as complexity increases, complexity decreases. These issues get worse as game scope and complexity increase, not better.
Well, yes. This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. lol An actor is a Hell of a lot more than a folder full of bitmaps and polygons, and the bitmaps and polygons are the only thing that can actually be reused on both platforms, and then only if both platforms are equally capable. Not only do the shaders and physics and rigging and animation and AI and net-code need to be written for one platform, all of that stuff then needs to be rewritten for the other platform.
While true, I feel like you're being a bit disingenuous here, because I've already pointed out that the move from PS3 to PS4 only grew the Killzone team by 20%, from 125 to 150. More to the point, it doesn't change the fact that a 256-man project is going to be a lot harder to port than a 6-man project, because now there's that much more stuff to port.
So after the developers themselves tell you it is indeed a significant undertaking, you counter with, "Well, yeah, but I'm pretty sure it isn't," after citing a bunch of stuff which actually does require additional effort to port.