Which platform do you usually earn the most from?

[Pixel_Maiden]

Is it better a focus on a game that'll be pc-only so i can make it more complex or is it better to "consolize" it and release it for multiple platforms?
If the earnings from other platforms aren't that groundbreaking i don't mind making a pc-exclusive.

 

[Iron_Brew]

How close are you to release? Have you looked into the porting process? Do you have the appropriate skills/devkits/licences? How would you track platform (or even SKU) specific bugs?

Flat facts, I don't think you can really expect people to give you a breakdown of per-platform earnings.

I think different projects do better with differing methods and platforms of distribution and I don't think that it's responsible to be like "I make most of my money from Switch sales! You should go to the eShop!" without first identifying if you're capable of multiple-SKU development

 

[Lord_Bluffkin]

I earn the most from Shopify.

 

[Pixel_Maiden]

How close are you to release? Have you looked into the porting process? Do you have the appropriate skills/devkits/licences? How would you track platform (or even SKU) specific bugs?

Flat facts, I don't think you can really expect people to give you a breakdown of per-platform earnings.

I think different projects do better with differing methods and platforms of distribution and I don't think that it's responsible to be like "I make most of my money from Switch sales! You should go to the eShop!" without first identifying if you're capable of multiple-SKU development

O no i was just wondering why most studios, including indie, prefer not to make pc exclusive games and instead opt for a "optimised" approach for multiplatform rather than complex/controller unfriendly game mechanics, like RTS games or Stalker, System Shock 2 etc

 

[Ellenor]

My team are going with the PC first approach, and wait to see if there is any bugs we have missed before going to any console.
It also comes with a few perks
1. Less bugs for the console release.
2. We can see the demands before we release on consoles.

If you should go for console or not depends if you see there is a demand for it, if there is no demand for your game on the consoles then you may end up just wasting money.
devkits for consoles are between 99 - 2500$ depending on console.
And LOOOTS of paperwork.

Most indies actually do not end up on consoles because of those costs. Only a handful of the ones you see on steam does =3

 

[ATT_Turan]

O no i was just wondering why most studios, including indie, prefer not to make pc exclusive games

I do not think that's an accurate view of "most."

The largest studios make many of their games cross-platform because they can - they can afford the parallel development, so it makes perfect sense for them to get as much revenue from people owning various consoles as possible.

Most indies do not do this. In fact, it's very difficult and pricey for you to consider porting an RPG Maker game to a console. You can look up several threads on the topic; there are dedicated companies who can convert the game for you, and it's expensive.

On top of that, I would say there are more professional studios making games just for PC than there are making games exclusive to any one of the consoles.

and instead opt for a "optimised" approach for multiplatform rather than complex/controller unfriendly game mechanics, like RTS games or Stalker, System Shock 2 etc

I'm confused by what you're saying here, because you're combining opposites. RTS (and even turn-based strategy) is one of the most famously PC-only genres, and there are very few games in it that have console versions.

Stalker and System Shock are FPS games, which are very easily ported to consoles due to the simplistic control scheme and how well-suited joysticks are to gameplay.

So...yeah, I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Pixel_Maiden]

I do not think that's an accurate view of "most."

The largest studios make many of their games cross-platform because they can - they can afford the parallel development, so it makes perfect sense for them to get as much revenue from people owning various consoles as possible.

Most indies do not do this. In fact, it's very difficult and pricey for you to consider porting an RPG Maker game to a console. You can look up several threads on the topic; there are dedicated companies who can convert the game for you, and it's expensive.

On top of that, I would say there are more professional studios making games just for PC than there are making games exclusive to any one of the consoles.


I'm confused by what you're saying here, because you're combining opposites. RTS (and even turn-based strategy) is one of the most famously PC-only genres, and there are very few games in it that have console versions.

Stalker and System Shock are FPS games, which are very easily ported to consoles due to the simplistic control scheme and how well-suited joysticks are to gameplay.

So...yeah, I don't understand what you're getting at.

They literally dumbed down mechanics of System Shock 2 so that Bioshock could be played in controller.
The way those games is set up means using controllers is next to impossible even though they are fps(and why would you want to play fps on a controller anyway). Like battlefield 2 cant be played properly using controller. So they made bf2 modern combat which "dumbed down" complex things to fit a controller rather than a kbm

Take for example arma. It's first person but you can't properly port it to controllers owing to you utilising the entire dang keyboard to play the game.

Games like Arena fps (not boomer shooter) cant be played on controller

I want those. I want to be able to carry 9 weapons slots, with 3 guns in each slot.

I want freedom and control.

I want games like Hidden and Dangerous.

I miss rts. I want a new CnC i want Warcraft IV.

Games like Planescape torment.

Is the profit from controller based user a large enough quantity to stop making games that can only be properly played on kb+m? If so, why are games first made for console than pc, instead of being like RtCW where pc comes first than consoles.

And should i do it too? Or should i keep it pc only and make it autistically complicated

 

[ATT_Turan]

They literally dumbed down mechanics of System Shock 2 so that Bioshock could be played in controller

I played Bioshock when it came out on PC. It is not the same game as System Shock. I used all the number keys to directly access different weapons and, I believe it was the function keys to directly access different plasmids. I don't understand what you think was dumbed down.

Take for example arma. It's first person but you can't properly port it to controllers owing to you utilising the entire dang keyboard to play the game

Your posts are confusing. I don't understand whether you're arguing for or against cross-platform ports of games. Nor why it matters to you, your original question was whether you should.

I miss rts. I want a new CnC i want Warcraft IV

You know very many RTS games (and some really good ones) have been made since the last Command and Conquer or Warcraft, right? And what do they have to do with controllers or ports?

You seem to be claiming that companies who want to make an RTS won't, because it can't be ported with controller controls. That's just silly.

Games like Planescape torment?

You mean like Pillars of Eternity, PoE 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Shadowrun: Dragonfire, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous...?

Is the profit from controller based user a large enough quantity to stop making games that can only be properly played on kb+m?

I just don't know why you think this. It's like you haven't looked at all at games being released for PC.

I'm gonna retreat from this thread, you clearly aren't trying to ask a question as much as you are ranting about some preconception you have.

 

[Iron_Brew]

O no i was just wondering why most studios, including indie, prefer not to make pc exclusive games and instead opt for a "optimised" approach for multiplatform rather than complex/controller unfriendly game mechanics, like RTS games or Stalker, System Shock 2 etc

Simply put, exclusivity restricts the number of users you can get to play your game as people who don't have the platform for which you are exclusively developing. If there's no reason for a game to be an exclusive it objectively shouldn't be one, and most of the reasons PC purists cite as "reasons this MUST be on PC ONLY!!!!!" are preferences and opinions.

If you can afford it and have the expertise, increasing your platforms gives you access to whole new audiences.

Games is a business. Thus, it makes no sense to make exclusives simply for the same of making exclusives (unless you are a hardware manufacturer like Nintendo for whom the gated community of exclusive IP is one of their USPs).

 

[Pixel_Maiden]

I played Bioshock when it came out on PC. It is not the same game as System Shock. I used all the number keys to directly access different weapons and, I believe it was the function keys to directly access different plasmids. I don't understand what you think was dumbed down.


Your posts are confusing. I don't understand whether you're arguing for or against cross-platform ports of games. Nor why it matters to you, your original question was whether you should.

You know very many RTS games (and some really good ones) have been made since the last Command and Conquer or Warcraft, right? And what do they have to do with controllers or ports?

You seem to be claiming that companies who want to make an RTS won't, because it can't be ported with controller controls. That's just silly.

You mean like Pillars of Eternity, PoE 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Shadowrun: Dragonfire, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous...?

I just don't know why you think this. It's like you haven't looked at all at games being released for PC.

I'm gonna retreat from this thread, you clearly aren't trying to ask a question as much as you are ranting about some preconception you have.

It's half rant *and* half question because i want to know to understand why. If i get to know and understand the point of view of something i don't agree with comes from, ill be better able to come to a better conclusion about topics and hence prevent less "fightings".

First of all a clear up, it's less about the system of the hardware and more about the input method. I couldn't care less if your game from a old pc-98. Hell i had a ****ty pc for a long time and i had to spend lots of time modding and tweaking what at that time was high end games like Nier Automata to play them. I dont care if your system is an alienware or a office pc, my gripe is how you play the games. Console games are made predominantly with a gamepad controller in mind while pc is keyboard and mouse. Hence why most "pc exclusive" dont have controller support.

for bioshock:
Remeber how in system shock 2, you could open logs tab, research tab, inventory, and stats all in the same window without pausing the game, and could still move your mouse around and shoot hybrids with both free look and mouse centered look. This prevents breaking the sequence of the game and is more in line with the "immersive reality" design philosophy as you are still in the game accessing a system as a part of the game world and not an "extra world" like the inventory in resident evil. Bioshock doesnt have that as that is more conceivable in a mouse and keyboard game rather than a controller. Additionally, the number of plasmids you could carry was limited while in system shock 2 they gave all the psi in a tiered psi window which we can select the desire page with the mouse and apply. Thus meaning in system shock 2's system(pun unintended) you can access all the skills while bioshock in can only access a limited pool of it owing to input limitations of a gamepad. There are additional details like how there is no limited inventory but that is personal preference not hardware related so im not bringing that upm
Games like E.Y.E. and Stalker have similar system to system shock 2 and thus, despite strong community effort for the past 20 years, controller ports are still not practical to this day, without eliminating an element in the game. Meaning in AAA studios, a game like those would not be developed at least frequently since they go for a multi platform release and gamepad controllers are limited compared to keyboard and mouse. Thus why Metro doesn't have many elements of Stalker, despite deriving heavily from it and thus it is a "dumbed down" or "consolized" version of it. I dont hate either games. I hate not making the former type of other game because multiplatform.
And as for the rts are you really gonna say there are less rts games in the 2000s as conpared to 2010s-present?
And, yes, rts is not popularly made by publishers exactly because it's not very portable to console. Expending the same amount of money on a multiplatform game would seem a much for safer option for them to make more money and that's what they do.

Its not a preconception either. The number of games even in the wikipedia list shows the exact trend.

List of real-time strategy video games - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Simply put, exclusivity restricts the number of users you can get to play your game as people who don't have the platform for which you are exclusively developing. If there's no reason for a game to be an exclusive it objectively shouldn't be one, and most of the reasons PC purists cite as "reasons this MUST be on PC ONLY!!!!!" are preferences and opinions.

If you can afford it and have the expertise, increasing your platforms gives you access to whole new audiences.

Games is a business. Thus, it makes no sense to make exclusives simply for the same of making exclusives (unless you are a hardware manufacturer like Nintendo for whom the gated community of exclusive IP is one of their USPs).

My problem is the control scheme. Multi platform has to be made for consoles, and console users use typically use gamepad controllers as well, so they typical do not tend to make as complex controls as a pc-only game would do which means, games like arma, battlefield 2(it plays very differently as compared with latter battlefield) etc. would not be made because "no console audience". So, you won't get those games as much. It doesn't have to be multiplatform but if it's not multiplatform EA wont publish it so games with that can only run on kbm will not be available.

The reason for a game to be exclusive, is the limited capablities of gamepad. The effect is games which will run on keyboard mouse just fine but not on gamepad won't be made. And the proof is, as i have given above, lack of kbm games as showed by the trend in rts games in wikipedia

In the long run, multiplatform will hurt consoles as well as. In fact even right now there is very little reason to buy ps5, but multiple reason to buy a switch

And It's actually better in the long run for profit for each platform to gatekeep the specific thing they can best produce and to focus on it alone(Ricardian Model of Trade)

 

[Iron_Brew]

My problem is the control scheme. Multi platform has to be made for consoles, and console users use typically use gamepad controllers as well, so they typical do not tend to make as complex controls as a pc-only game would do which means, games like arma, battlefield 2(it plays very differently as compared with latter battlefield) etc. would not be made because "no console audience". So, you won't get those games as much. It doesn't have to be multiplatform but if it's not multiplatform EA wont publish it so games with that can only run on kbm will not be available.

Like I said, every PC purist's arguments (EDIT: well, the vast majority) come down to preference. There are plenty of console ports of milsims - flashpoint etc are great adaptations, and the streamlining/removal of convolusion isn't necessarily a bad thing for a lot of players.

At the end of the day, games are a business. I don't think that restricting the market is ever a good thing, and specifically "gatekeeping" and alienating players to cater to a niche audience rather than adapting your product and going broad is only successful in a small number of anomalous cases.

In addition to this the Ricardian model of trade has been widely criticised for being overly simplistic, and not actually applicable due to the collaborative necessity of business. Simply put, it's too simple as having only one factor is not a realistically complex representation of any business model, let alone games.

"I'm just going to make this narrow thing and get 100% of a niche audience of 10,000" is all very well and good, but if you get 10% of a broad audience of 1,000,000 you've made ten times the sales.

At the end of the day, more potential consumers = more potential profit, and you don't even have to hit the same metrics in terms of product performance.

 

[Pixel_Maiden]

Like I said, every PC purist's arguments come down to preference. There are plenty of console ports of milsims - flashpoint etc are great adaptations, and the streamlining/removal of convolusion isn't necessarily a bad thing for a lot of players.

At the end of the day, games are a business. I don't think that restricting the market is ever a good thing, and specifically "gatekeeping" and alienating players to cater to a niche audience rather than adapting your product and going broad is only successful in a small number of anomalous cases.

In addition to this the Ricardian model of trade has been widely criticised for being overly simplistic, and not actually applicable due to the collaborative necessity of business. Simply put, it's too simple as having only one factor is not a realistically complex representation of any business model, let alone games.

"I'm just going to make this narrow thing and get 100% of a niche audience of 10,000" is all very well and good, but if you get 10% of a broad audience of 1,000,000 you've made ten times the sales.

At the end of the day, more potential consumers = more potential profit, and you don't even have to hit the same metrics in terms of product performance.

Kay thx

 

[Iron_Brew]

Kay thx

Gonna assume you're trolling and tap out now.

 

[Pixel_Maiden]

Gonna assume you're trolling and tap out now.

I wasn't trolling. I was expressing my displeasure over the homogenisation of gameplay controls for the sake of mass acceptance in different methods of input

I was expressing my gratitude for your information on the Ricardian Method which i have noted and thus correct myself on the matter