[Merged] Please make a console version!

[AwesomeOcelot]

Consoles have always had turn based RPG like Final Fantasy Tactics, and that type of game is fine with a gamepad, although I've heard people complain Final Fantasy games have been dumbed down. Consoles have been the preferred platform of 3rd person RPG games like Dark Souls, but it's not like games like Dark Souls in terms of skill and complexity are common or popular on consoles, the reason PC gamers wanted Dark Souls was because it was a rarity for such a game to be on consoles. When I get around to playing Dark Souls, it will be on a Xbox 360 pad on my PC.

 

Squad based isometric real-time games like Dragon Age: Origins are rare on consoles, and to control well need a mouse and keyboard, as would any game modelled after the typical RTS control method. If you think Dragon Age: Origins controls well on a gamepad you've never played a similar RPG on a PC. PC games support gamepads, no one but a console gamer would choose to use a gamepad over a mouse and keyboard on a PC for these types of games, because everybody knows that it makes way more sense. The reason Dragon Age "2" is different is because concessions were made for the consoles. For Project Eternity to be ported to consoles a similar reworking would have to be made, and that would take a lot of work, when the original PC version is being made from the ground up to work with mouse and keyboard.

 

At the time when developers switched to making console games and the majority of big releases were either multi platform or not on PC at all was also the time games started to get smaller, simpler, and more "cinematic" (meaning less gameplay). Some of this was because console hardware is just not good enough, RAM is a big problem, Valve had to create twice as many loading points as on the PC for Half-Life 2, but some developers just port that over to the PC so there's many unnecessary loading screens like Max Payne 3. FPS games on console are slower, smaller, easier, have crappy textures, a limited FOV, and usually limit the amount of weapons, a lot of the time these problems are not fixed for a PC version.

Edited October 9, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[sesobebo]

Huge number of console gamers LOVED Dragon Age Origins and it's sad that game won't get proper sequel. Now Obsidian is making that exact kind of WRPG but unfortunately only for PC.

 

not that exact kind.

max party size will be 6 not 4. and that's pretty much the only thing we know. we don't know how inventory will work, how magic memorization will work, how many spells/feats/skills there will be. all this stuff shapes the UI.

i don't care if the game is made fro toasters and gameboys and whatnot, as long as the gameplay is not in any way compromised. but considering console's input devices, processing powers, and games made for them (i'd say that DA:O had a mess of an inventory, and withcher 2's was even worse), i very much doubt that'd have been the case.

[Infinitron]

Just for laughs, here is the Baldur's Gate Playstation 1 port:

 

Yes, this is real.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Infinitron

[ImRhoven]

I'm sorry if my post seemed insulting or trollish.

However, I REALLY do not see how it is irrelevant that there are tons of difficult and deep console RPGs. Some guys here sound like they really belive that console RPG = Mass Effect & FF XIII. That's just silly and ignorant.

I remember when PC gamers begged for PC port of Dark Souls, I'd never play that game on PC but I supported those who requested PC version. I really ejoyed playing both Souls games and I belived that there is a market for that kind of RPG on PC even if I never was really PC gamer myself. It's sad that some PC gamers are not capable of the same.

Huge number of console gamers LOVED Dragon Age Origins and it's sad that game won't get proper sequel. Now Obsidian is making that exact kind of WRPG but unfortunately only for PC. PLEASE understand why some of us want this kind of game on consoles and why are we even willing to BEG for port.

 

The old IE games, and by extension PE are NOT exactly like Dragon Age: Origins. Trust me, I've played both. And the reason they are not alike is because Dragon Age was developed for multiple platforms. DA:O is a diluted version of the IE games. From the combat system to the controls to the inventory system, everything was simplified in order to be playable with a console controller. (I'm blaming the lack of depth and the numerous filler quests on it being an AAA title in general, and not just a console release, and thus needing full voice work and high-end 3D graphics for everything being prohibitively expensive and cutting into the amount of content created.) This is exactly what Obsidian wants to avoid for PE.

[jarpie]

As some already has said in here: The licensing fees for console games are very high, especially for the budget what PE will have. That is just one of the many reasons why we dont want console version.

 

There are other limitations in consoles than just the controllers - the memory. Both XBox 360 and PS3 has only 512MB memory which is pretty ridiculously small. I'd be very surprised if the next XBox and PS would have more than 1GB.

[DaWu]

No way. I am jumping of the train if they anounce a console version. I dont want PE to be dumbed down for nower days dumb console generation kids.

[AwesomeOcelot]

If the OUYA supports mouse and keyboard I don't see the harm of a port to that system.

[Ieo]

If the OUYA supports mouse and keyboard I don't see the harm of a port to that system.

 

It uses some variant of Android. Hardware may not be good enough either (1GB RAM). It's not merely the HUD that creates a barrier to porting.

[AwesomeOcelot]

If the OUYA supports mouse and keyboard I don't see the harm of a port to that system.

 

It uses some variant of Android. Hardware may not be good enough either (1GB RAM). It's not merely the HUD that creates a barrier to porting.

 

Yeah, and it only has 8GB capacity flash storage, which is not nearly enough. It would be awesome to have a game create a front end that can interface with the game engine over a network.

Edited October 13, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[the.only.ara54]

Just for laughs, here is the Baldur's Gate Playstation 1 port:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QGS34Lj7qA&feature=related

 

Yes, this is real.

 

OMG. How could you imagine spending hundreds of hours on this..?

[KhaineGB]

The game is out in 2014.

 

Your time could be better spent saving up for a low-mid range gaming PC (pretty sure a low-end gaming PC in 2014 could run PE) rather than trying to get a console version. The amount it would cost in add-on licences for Unity to publish to the 360/ps3/wiiU, plus the amount to publish on PSN/eShop/LIVE Marketplace just wouldn't be worth it... and that's before you factor in man-hours to properly port the game, and the fact it would likely suck on console vs PC... so I believe it'd actually end up being a loss for Obsidian.

 

BTW, I'm both a Console and a PC gamer, so I'm not just ragging on consoles out of prejudice... I honestly believe it'd be a bad decision and a bad game.

[Luridis]

I'm a programmer, among other things. While I'm not a game developer I do know something about what is involved. So, I'm going to try to explain as best I can why building for a port will not only cost more, but seriously hinder game depth.

 

There is nothing wrong with consoles or console games. However, many PC gamers, myself included, are tired of playing RPGs and other genres we consider to be substandard compared to what was made in the past. This happens primarillay due to cross-platform development for consoles. So, what then is the biggest problem with the console? It's not the mouse and keyboard! In short, it's the hardware.

 

Consoles are typically far behind even the most basic PC in terms of hardware. There is less RAM, less CPU, and far less GPU. Believe it or not, most of the hard-core PC gamers here paid more for their video card than the cost of all three major consoles combined. There are less audio channels, far less poly-per-second processing and bandwidth for the graphics pipeline between the CPU and GPU. But, we're not just talking about graphics and sound. RAM has a major impact on the depth of game play. The number of active NPCs, background quests, etc. are HEAVILY effected by available RAM. You know the "city" areas they're talking about? Huge RAM requirements there. In summary, there's just far less game you can fit into a console than a PC.

 

Now let's talk development costs... Why is it so much more? Well, first we're talking about 3 vastly different hardware platforms. The cell processor uses an entirely different toolset than the PowerPC CPU in the XBox. The GPUs probably use entirely different APIs as well. So vast, huge, mosterous parts of the code must be written differently for each; this is costly in programmer man-hours. If you add a 3rd party cross platform engine, that adds limitations and costs that are non-trivial from the get go. Go read about how much time Bethesda spends modifying the gamebro engine, it's huge! But, we're not just talking about money here; time is a resource as well. All of these things use up time that would be better spent on content and depth. Now add the cut they have to pay the console vendors and publishers and we're talking tens of millions of dollars.

 

So yes, whether you want to believe this or not. The fact is PC games must sacrifice a whole lot in order to make porting viable. That said, I didn't fund thier kickstarter to buy another cross-platform game. I want back those things that make computer gaming great, and your console port would cost me that. This isn't personal; I have nothing against consoles or their users, I just am not willing to sacrifice greatness for their sake.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Luridis

[Luridis]

Note: I see that there is discussion of Unity3D, which is cross platform. However, it changes little of what I said. Many things need to be altered to work everywhere. From textures to dialogue, some game assets just won't work well everywhere in an intricate and complex CRPG. Add to that, the API's, or built-in feature code, is MUCH more limited on consoles, and you begin to understand why the process of porting is expensive and time consuming. If you go and peruse through Unity3D’s documentation, you’ll notice that there are features marked unavailable for certain platforms.

 

Obsidian is a professional development group. They’re not going to use Unity as delivered out of the box. Just as professional auto mechanics use tools in thier shops that are too large, expensive or complicated for your own garage, Obsidian will augment Unity with in-house components. This is likely to be one of the major areas of incompatibility with consoles. For instance, that 2550 x 1440 game screenshot is not going to look like that on a PS3.

 

There is hope for consoles though... If this game does well enough once released for PC to attract major attention, a publisher may come looking for a port. At that point they can pay Obsidian to port the game to a console, or at least a compatible approximation of it. Just don't give them IP rights Obsidian, that's killed more great ideas than patent trolling.

 

Oh, and one more thing: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/crowdfunding

Edited October 14, 2012 by Luridis

[Hormalakh]

I really want PE on my Gameboy Advanced too. I mean if we're going to waste developer time to port the game to new systems, why not spend the time to port it over to my GBA? Instead of making a game three times as deep and interesting with the same production time and money, let's spend that time and money to port the game over to as many consoles as we can. I'll get my PSP buddies too. We'll definitely be bringing in more players to Project Eternity. Think how awesome it would be. Sure, the developers would need to hire probably a few more employees who are experts in these consoles for help with ports and probably a few more people to help with testing the games and debugging them, because you know, with each iteration of a console, you'll be needing to test the heck out of that console, but it'll be worth it.

 

Anyway, my point is Project Eternity for GBA! Let's do it devs!

[AGX-17]

If making a console version would hinder development or remove anything from the game then don't do it, simple as that.

By default it does. As soon as you go from "whats possible for PC" to "whats possible for console" you've limited your choices (memory, processing power, UI, controls etc.)

 

Yep, in the early/mid 2000s previously PC-centered publishers (like Bethesda and Interplay) abandoned PC development in favor of consoles. That's how Interplay killed Fallout, and how Bethesda ruined The Elder Scrolls.

[BruceVC]

I'm a programmer, among other things. While I'm not a game developer I do know something about what is involved. So, I'm going to try to explain as best I can why building for a port will not only cost more, but seriously hinder game depth.

 

There is nothing wrong with consoles or console games. However, many PC gamers, myself included, are tired of playing RPGs and other genres we consider to be substandard compared to what was made in the past. This happens primarillay due to cross-platform development for consoles. So, what then is the biggest problem with the console? It's not the mouse and keyboard! In short, it's the hardware.

 

Consoles are typically far behind even the most basic PC in terms of hardware. There is less RAM, less CPU, and far less GPU. Believe it or not, most of the hard-core PC gamers here paid more for their video card than the cost of all three major consoles combined. There are less audio channels, far less poly-per-second processing and bandwidth for the graphics pipeline between the CPU and GPU. But, we're not just talking about graphics and sound. RAM has a major impact on the depth of game play. The number of active NPCs, background quests, etc. are HEAVILY effected by available RAM. You know the "city" areas they're talking about? Huge RAM requirements there. In summary, there's just far less game you can fit into a console than a PC.

 

Now let's talk development costs... Why is it so much more? Well, first we're talking about 3 vastly different hardware platforms. The cell processor uses an entirely different toolset than the PowerPC CPU in the XBox. The GPUs probably use entirely different APIs as well. So vast, huge, mosterous parts of the code must be written differently for each; this is costly in programmer man-hours. If you add a 3rd party cross platform engine, that adds limitations and costs that are non-trivial from the get go. Go read about how much time Bethesda spends modifying the gamebro engine, it's huge! But, we're not just talking about money here; time is a resource as well. All of these things use up time that would be better spent on content and depth. Now add the cut they have to pay the console vendors and publishers and we're talking tens of millions of dollars.

 

So yes, whether you want to believe this or not. The fact is PC games must sacrifice a whole lot in order to make porting viable. That said, I didn't fund thier kickstarter to buy another cross-platform game. I want back those things that make computer gaming great, and your console port would cost me that. This isn't personal; I have nothing against consoles or their users, I just am not willing to sacrifice greatness for their sake.

 

Thx Luridis for this informative post about why games developed for Consoles and PC won't be as complex as PC only games. I always find these types of insights fascinating.

[HangedMan]

I hate to come across as elitist or anything, but I do hope it stays PC only. Porting only ever really seems to cause problems, one way or the other.

[perezca]

If making a console version would hinder development or remove anything from the game then don't do it, simple as that.

By default it does. As soon as you go from "whats possible for PC" to "whats possible for console" you've limited your choices (memory, processing power, UI, controls etc.)

 

Yep, in the early/mid 2000s previously PC-centered publishers (like Bethesda and Interplay) abandoned PC development in favor of consoles. That's how Interplay killed Fallout, and how Bethesda ruined The Elder Scrolls.

 

Ya know I've been reading everyone's replies to this thread and most of you have some interesting points and obviously a lot of you didn't read what I posted about the console version being AFTER the release of the PC version but anyways I just had to come reply as soon as I read this truly ridiculous statement. I don't even know where to start on this one, just wow. Hmm well all I have to say is I've played Baldur's Gate, NWN 1 and 2, among other Forgotten Realms games for the PC. But ya know what made me play those games in the first place? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for the Xbox. Yeah. I only got really interested in RPG's because of that game. And guess what? Still today, it is my favorite game of all time and guess what? It was on console too. And on the point of Fallout, I think that's pretty funny cause you're comparing 1 and 2 which were turn-based with 3 and NV which were real-time. All I have to say is I think a whole lot of people would have to disagree with you on this. Oh and to whoever said Ouya, Ouya sounds good to me! But yeah the specs aren't the best but then again, this isn't a spec-heavy game.

 

Cody Perez

Press Admin for www.gamersyndrome.com

[AwesomeOcelot]

I think if they made it 720p, scaled the assets and textures, they could get away with porting it to the OUYA. 1GB of RAM isn't a problem, the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512MB. It's the 8GB of storage that would be the problem, perhaps if the OUYA allowed for the capacity to be increased. It would be cool if people could play Project Eternity on a $100 platform, but this version could also be available for low end computers running Linux, Android is a Linux distro after all. This could also provide incredible opportunities for total conversions and future development.

[Jezovuk]

Consoles are typically far behind even the most basic PC in terms of hardware. There is less RAM, less CPU, and far less GPU. Believe it or not, most of the hard-core PC gamers here paid more for their video card than the cost of all three major consoles combined. There are less audio channels, far less poly-per-second processing and bandwidth for the graphics pipeline between the CPU and GPU.But, we're not just talking about graphics and sound. RAM has a major impact on the depth of game play. The number of active NPCs, background quests, etc. are HEAVILY effected by available RAM. You know the're talking about? Huge RAM requirements there. In summary, there's just far less game you can fit into a console than a PC.

Really? You can't be serious. How should amount of RAM or anything else regarding current console hardware matter for a low budget Unity engine RPG with 2D backgrounds. Seriously, how? I can kinda understand interface related arguments but this is just silly. Please, see how some of the latest multiplatform and console exclusive games look like. Same consoles you are trying to present as too weak and aged for a UNITY ENGINE RPG WITH 2D BACKGROUNDS run some amazing looking games just fine.

[jivex5k]

Didn't the team already say the reason they are not doing multiplayer/consoles is they want to make an epic single player pc experience and they don't want to detract from it by spending time/money on these things.

 

Save up for a couple years and get a cheap pc, this game requirements probably won't be that high.

[HoneyBaked]

The game is being designed specifically for PC mouse/keyboard setup. Please no console version.

[Jesugandalf]

Please no! Don't make a console version!

 

In any or other way, all the games with a console version have ended being more "console-ish" than "pc-ish". If Obsidian is building something true to the Infinity Engine Games' spirit, it definitely have to be a PC only game.

 

Tradition is tradition. And it must be respected.

[Zeyelth]

I don't think porting the game would cost that much. At least not in terms of getting it to run on other platforms; there's a reason why they're so confident about the Mac/Linux port. I guess it depends on what licence they have with regards to Unity, and whether they modify it, but any port to a platform Unity supports should be fairly painless, barring any hardware constraints such as memory and CPU. Though they could probably "fix" most such issues by lowering the resolution of assets instead of spending time on optimisation.

 

What will require time and resources however, is adapting the game to a non-keyboard and mouse setup, which would likely create a rather different experience. A straight up port with a simulated keyboard and a Wii-mote/analog stick as a substitute for a mouse could potentially work, but would likely feel awkward.

 

In any case, I'm fine with a port if they do it post-release, and only if it does not impact the PC version in any way.

[Lord2]

I believe our beloved Chris said he finally got the chance to not dumb down (can't remember the exact words) a game. A console version of this game is probably not appleaing at all.