[Merged] Please make a console version!

[Falelorn]

I like console games, but only if they are designed from the ground up for consoles... PE is a true PC game and it should not be bastardized into a console title.

[Shevek]

Making a console version increases development costs and forces design changes that would damage the core vision of this project.

[Hormalakh]

It's interesting.. One of the best RPGs of all time, as agreed by many, (Baldur's Gate 2) has yet to be ported to these consoles and I don't see anyone ever griping about that. Anyone know why that is? I'm not trying to be facetious, just honestly wondering. Have people been asking for this and the publishers said no or what?

[Luridis]

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.

 

Luridis makes serious face so he can be taken very seriously.

 

I already answered how the use of Unity doesn't change a whole lot. But, your mention of 2D textures is legitimate, so I will answer. Large textures must be scaled down and verified to be viable on consoles and altered if they're not. Why do textures need to be scaled down? RAM!!! The teaser screen shot is in WQHD 1440p which is 4 times the resolution of 720p. Scaling is a lot of work for these guys, and so is verifying them on each platform.

 

Processing power and RAM in particular, both system and video, have a major effect on what you can do in a game: Number of objects in the scene, number of opponents in combat, complexity of artifical intelligence, number of variables in the combat calculations themselves; which directly effects the number of classes you can have and the depth and complexity of their mechanics.

 

But, you don't have to belive anything that I write here. How about we take this to Unity3D developers themselves?

 

I'm going to quote Spectre9000 from this Unity forum thread:

 

"Memory is an issue that's rarely touched on with PC's due to PC's having vastly more memory than consoles and handheld devices, but it is still there and you have to decide how best to handle the situation. Even with Unity using a more optimized method for handling large textures, you're still going to have a memory issue you'll have to face if your game is large enough.

"

 

And in his second post:

 

"Out of memory is a Hardware problem (Assuming the algorithm isn't grossly inefficient, which I'm giving UT the benefit of the doubt it isn't. Even still it'd be a combination of both at best). Even the most efficient algorithms can't run if there's not enough actual memory. Sometimes you have to do some actual optimization on your stuff. A game engine and plugins/extensions aren't magical and still have limitations such as memory size.

"

 

Now, I will point you to read this entire thread on the Unity3D forums. Of particular interest are these statements:

 

"I've worked on a few ports... probably my least favourite work.

You really do have to butcher them if the target spec is a lot less in terms of processing power (CPU/GPU), RAM, etc. Even if its a higher spec, it's not your job to add new stuff, maybe just add a few eye candy features. Time = Money.

" - callahan.44

 

"

Porting is tricky at the best of times... Unity is the closest I've seen to "easy" cross-platform, and that comes loaded with ceveats...

 

From the core game engine to the teams that do the ports (most times sub-contracted work - who wants to live the same nightmare twice?!?

) porting isn't easy. Almost every aspect of a game is geared toward the main target platform(s), from audio and graphics to game engine and compiliers. If you don't start with "we're going to deploy everywhere" then you really get down a rat hole fast.

" - galent

 

"

Consoles have a small amount of video ram compared to PCs and so there isn't much choice but to keep texture sizes to a minimum.

" - Unified

 

That's about all there is to be said about porting. Like I said in my previous post, I don't care if a publisher comes along and wants a port, but they can pay for the porting after the PC release. The Kickstarter was advertised to make a great PC Game, not a medicore PC game due to the time and expense that must go into porting it to the likes of a PS3.

[Frisk]

The Kickstarter was advertised to make a great PC Game, not a medicore PC game due to the time and expense that must go into porting it to the likes of a PS3.

 

Exactly!

 

I wish the console questions and requests would go away, but I am pretty sure that we will be seeing posts like "I want this game for <console>", "Why hasn't this been posted to <console> yet?" or "It's so easy to port game to <console>, so when is Obsidian going to do it" until the game is released...and beyond that.

 

Ah, well....

[AwesomeOcelot]

It's interesting.. One of the best RPGs of all time, as agreed by many, (Baldur's Gate 2) has yet to be ported to these consoles and I don't see anyone ever griping about that. Anyone know why that is? I'm not trying to be facetious, just honestly wondering. Have people been asking for this and the publishers said no or what?

 

Baldur's Gate was going to be ported to the PlayStation about 2 years after release in 2000 but was cancelled, the video in this thread shows that it was awful.

[Toombs]

1. I do not understand this attitude! My firm belief is that every good game should be available to largest possible number of players.

 

2. There is no reason for this game to be limited to PC platform:

 

3. I have already cited several examples of similar games that have achieved great success on consoles while neither PC nor console releases suffered from multiplatform nature of these games.

 

 

1. True

2. False

3. No sir, you have not. "Similar" Games would have been games like Baldurs Gate 1+2, Icewind Dale 1+2, Planescape Torment, Fallout 1+2. None of which have been released for Consoles.

 

Furthermore the "demise" of promising RPG Franchises like Dragon Age and Mass Effect are ..ah whatever..have a pic

 

[Frenetic Pony]

A console version is certaily doable, as is a version for tablets (iOS, Android). Unity certainly has the cross platform capabilities. But even the discussion of such, for Obsidian as a company, will almos certainly wait until after the game is done. Any port is going to cost time and money, and as such is going to need a good case for being done. Because the game is at least mostly pre-rendered it should run on an incredibly vast array of hardware, so vast that if you're reading this then you almost certainly are doing so on a platform that can play Project Eternity just fine.

 

Which means the demand for a port to consoles and/or tablets is going to have to come from people that wouldn't even play the game otherwise. Now there may be plenty of people that would do so. Minecraft can be played on a ridiculous cross section of hardware, and yet there are over a million people, with Kinect alone, that have bought it for the 360. Then again the appeal of Minecraft is also incredibly broad. The appeal of Eternity is inevitable going to be less than that, and how much of that appeal crosses into people that would only play it if it were available on consoles is questionable.

 

All of which means it's going to need to be up to Obsidian as a business case sometime after the game ships, and that it's not a terribly good prospect.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Frenetic Pony

[Luridis]

A console version is certaily doable, as is a version for tablets (iOS, Android). Unity certainly has the cross platform capabilities. But even the discussion of such, for Obsidian as a company, will almos certainly wait until after the game is done. Any port is going to cost time and money, and as such is going to need a good case for being done. Because the game is at least mostly pre-rendered it should run on an incredibly vast array of hardware, so vast that if you're reading this then you almost certainly are doing so on a platform that can play Project Eternity just fine.

 

I could shoot so many holes in your theory with technical explanations that I could use it to drain my spaghetti. But, if you have never written code for, or spent time reading about how complex CRPGS operate then you're simply not going to understand what I would say. Capability does not equal triviality in such an endeavor. Porting the game, featured as they have promised, is thousands of man-hours of work unless they design the game mechanics (not engine!) cross platform from the get-go. There is more going on in the code than pipeing scaled down eye candy to the rasterizer.

 

Again, the kickstarter supporters funded the development of a deep and complex computer role playing game. Not something less than that designed from the ground up to be console friendly.

[jaschmid]

To me a tablet version seems much more sensible than a console version, but even then I'd be cautious and not really consider it until late in production depending on a feasibility estimate. The problem with consoles is not just the (very) limited hardware, but also considerable first party requirements on any product. Load times have to be below certain times, save games have to be handled certain ways, you might be forced to add leader boards or other 'features' to your game for which it just isn't well suited. Coming up with solutions to not just the hardware limitations but also 'certification' requirements can end up soaking up significant number of development time and degrade other platforms.

 

On consoles we have to do X, but we'd rather do Y on PC, it is more time consuming to do X rather than Y, but it is even more time consuming to do X and Y. So we either don't release on Consoles, chose the X for Consoles and PC's degrading the PC slightly by implementing a not optimal solution, or develop and implement two independent solutions, degrading both platforms heavily due to the massive development cost of maintaining two different solutions.

[Paul D]

Personally I like the concept/idea of consuming my media through whatever pane-of-glass I am using. Yes - that means I love the concept of being able to play a cRPG on a PC/Console/Tablet etc. That said I am perfectly happy with starting with a PC/Mac/Linux version.

 

I backed OuYa for example not because I saw a powerful gaming machine, but because I saw the potential for an open-hackable device to be the centre of my home entertainment experience (I dislike Sony's XMB, and the iMac Mini doesn't 'do it' for me).

 

Yes the criticisms of consoles with regard to capacity and capability when compared to a fully spec'd gaming rig are fair - but if you then think of the ubiquitous nature of Internet access these days, efficient network transfer, bigger pipes, and cloud processing architecture, why does the graphic processing etc have to be done locally. Yes - running local means you are not dependent on the 'network' but the days of the network being insufficient are disappearing. It is certainly very different from the Internet of 20 years ago

 

The origin of this thread was not to start with a console version, but to make one eventually. If after the Unity based project is complete and distributed to PC/Mac/Linux machines, and of the move to console broadens the market and can be done profitably for Obsidian (without diluting their IP for example) then why not?

 

*edited to correct some things

Edited October 17, 2012 by Paul D

[Althernai]

The origin of this thread was not to start with a console version, but to make one eventually. If after the Unity based project is complete and distributed to PC/Mac/Linux machines, and of the move to console broadens the market and can be done profitably for Obsidian (without diluting their IP for example) then why not?

Because it cannot be done well without severely reducing the scope of the PC game. The issue is not CPU/GPU power (that might be a problem for tablets, but consoles are certainly powerful enough to run Project Eternity), it's the control interface. Here's an interview where one of the developers of Project Eternity discussed it:

 

And it'll be PC only, because Avellone is "tired of designing content and interactions that caters to consoles and console controllers."

 

"Those limitations affect RPG mechanics and content more than players may realize (especially for players who've never played a PC RPG and realize what's been lost over the years), and often doesn't add to the RPG experience," he told me.

 

I wrote a post earlier in this thread for people who don't understand why this is the case.

[deathwing]

No thanks, just make a version for PC.

[evdk]

Personally I like the concept/idea of consuming my media through whatever pane-of-glass I am using. Yes - that means I love the concept of being able to play a cRPG on a PC/Console/Tablet etc. That said I am perfectly happy with starting with a PC/Mac/Linux version.

 

I backed OuYa for example not because I saw a powerful gaming machine, but because I saw the potential for an open-hackable device to be the centre of my home entertainment experience (I dislike Sony's XMB, and the iMac Mini doesn't 'do it' for me).

 

Yes the criticisms of consoles with regard to capacity and capability when compared to a fully spec'd gaming rig are fair - but if you then think of the ubiquitous nature of Internet access these days, efficient network transfer, bigger pipes, and cloud processing architecture, why does the graphic processing etc have to be done locally. Yes - running local means you are not dependent on the 'network' but the days of the network being insufficient are disappearing. It is certainly very different from the Internet of 20 years ago

 

The origin of this thread was not to start with a console version, but to make one eventually. If after the Unity based project is complete and distributed to PC/Mac/Linux machines, and of the move to console broadens the market and can be done profitably for Obsidian (without diluting their IP for example) then why not?

 

*edited to correct some things

 

Please take your game streaming ideas and jump onto the pyre of OnLive.

[Luridis]

Exactly Althernai! But, no how many times you say, "things just aren't that simple" people will continue down a path of thinking that they are simple until they have their own experience that proves otherwise.

 

I'm just glad Obsidian decided to stick their neck out and give us a chance to vote with our dollars. I've bought maybe 5 games a year for the last few years because publishers just aren't publishing what I want to buy anymore.

[sonil]

i do not like your idea because there is less time for obsdian to complete the game.

[atn]

I don't currently have a computer of my own and probably won't have one for a while but I love your games Obsidian and considering the fact you guys have almost raised half the funding for Project Eternity and it's still day one, I think you will have plenty of funding to consider making a console version! So please consider it and if you announce a console version, I will gladly pledge! This is for anyone who agrees there should be a console version so speak up and let your voice be heard!

 

While I feel for you, for their first implementation of the game, I hope they don't waste time even considering a console port. Same goes for online play or multiplayer.

 

Dumbing down the game and interface/controls would, in my mind, contradict one of the core goals of this project: bringing back the quality RPGs of the days of BG, PS:T, NWN, ID.

 

Also, since this game will be made with the "old school" mentality, I'm pretty sure the system requirements will be easy to be met by a relatively cheap PC.

 

To sum up: I'd rather they spend all their limited resources to "bring back the RPG style of old" rather than considering console ports and other distractions.

Edited October 17, 2012 by atn

[Ruka]

If they do make one, make it a year later than this version. I don't want anything interrupting this beautiful PC game

[Wasabi]

i do not like your idea because there is less time for obsdian to complete the game.

 

^

 

Edit: Even though its for after the game is released, i rather have all the excess funds/resource goes into making the Expansion(s).

Edited October 18, 2012 by Wasabi

[keiichimorisato98]

i think i know of a compromise, make a Wii U version of the game. then we dont sacrifice on the user interface and it could potentially be played exclusively on the Wii U game pad if the demand was there for it... though i highly doubt it just i was thinking the stylus and touch screen would be great replacements for the mouse and keyboard.

[Luridis]

i think i know of a compromise, make a Wii U version of the game. then we dont sacrifice on the user interface and it could potentially be played exclusively on the Wii U game pad if the demand was there for it... though i highly doubt it just i was thinking the stylus and touch screen would be great replacements for the mouse and keyboard.

 

I've seen the developers say, on more than one occasion, they're tired of compromising for consoles. So, I think they've already answered that question. Follow the links in the thread...

[Odarbi]

My only thoughts on this subject are that *IF* a console version of P:E is to happen, none of the currently collected funds are diverted to make such a thing happen. The 4.1 million that was raised were to make P:E the PC game.

[mr.Ermac]

Don't worry after the game is released, console friends should make a petition - if it reaches 100 000 signatures, Obsidian will make a port equivallent to the quality of the Dark Souls PC port. Then maybe modders will fix it for the consoles. Oh, wait...

[jarpie]

Why is this thread still open? Obsidian has said that PE will be PC ONLY so there's no point of demanding console-version.

[Bryy]

i do not like your idea because there is less time for obsdian to complete the game.

 

^

 

Edit: Even though its for after the game is released, i rather have all the excess funds/resource goes into making the Expansion(s).

 

If they can make money, they'll do it.

 

If they can please fans, they'll do it.

 

I see them making a console version in 2015.