LucasArts producer explains why there's no upcoming PC version of Star Wars Force Unleashed...

via:
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/873/873303p1.html

Read The Interview:
(Scroll down to the middle for the no PC port response)

http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/star_wars_the_force_unleashed/preview-921.html

 

In other words "we're lazy, and you're all going to pirate it anyways - so screw you, muhahaha!!!"

*shifty eyes*

 

Sad part is, making such claim as to only $4000 PCs will able to handle the game, shows just how ignorant LucasArts has become towards PC gaming.

Clearly shows that, nowadays they don't even bother try to do some market research (as far as PC platform goes), simply just go to Alienware/Dell XPS website, mosh up some "killer" rigs, and claim that only such monster rigs will be able to handle the new Euphoria physics engine. While leaving the folks with custom built rigs that only cost $800, yet able to run Crysis smoothly, to the dust.

 

Don't see piracy in there anywhere.

Do see him mentioning the problem AMD, EPIC, nV and others have been complaining about for quite some time with the the weak intel intergrated hardware abilities creating a huge gulf/disparity between rigs.

People having been saying this would happen for quite some time, this is just the first major studio to say it openly.

 

I wasn't planning on ever buying a 360, but after seeing this I might have to.

 

Well, one less copy sold...I'm not getting another gaming system just for this one. Had it been on PC that would be a much different (and better) story.

Oh well. Their loss, not mine.

 

I call shenanigans.

 

Piracy doesn't have to be in the article for me to mention it. I don't believe for 1 second that piracy had nothing to do with this decision.

Just a bunch of old, white, bald guys in a boardroom going "alright, we can make $X if we do this, we can make $Y if we do that. Here's the pros and cons of each, this is what we're going to do...".

 

Very sad indeed, thanks for posting about this story.

So, it would have been a port. Given the quality of port games out there as far as efficiency goes . . . it would most likely have been bad.
What annoys me about games done on a console first then PC is that a) if they're ported over, they run bad (most of the time) and have quirky controls/odd glitches, and b) if they do run good on PC, they're not as good as they could be because the game is still written within the limits of a console's specifications.

 

Here's an idea....all these stupid consoles and PCs have a few things in common. They all use GPUs from nVidia, ATI, or IBM. Why don't they all stick to hardware that works with OpenGL, and make it so that OpenGL code could be ported to any console with little fuss?

Oh, and then why don't they stick to abstract data types and code for their game engines, and build compilers that can optimize the code for whichever console or PC?

Gee...that's an idea. Maybe that would work if everyone would agree to it...which is why it will never happen.

 

OK so then we're just making up reasons?

Alright, it's because the US government didn't want valuable space technology to get out and they banned it while at the same time Nintendo and Sony or IBM paying huge sums of money to make it console exclusive. It's IBM's evil plan to keep it off of X86 chips.

That or the Sith are behind it all.

Yes, that is how business is conducted in a capitalist system. Still doesn't support the other supposition.

 

Saying that Piracy was one of the reasons behind this decision is hardly a conspiracy theory. Many companies have openly backed out of developing for the PC due to piracy - it's not like I completely made the point up. Don't know why you're getting in such a fuss about it - don't believe me if you wish. Trust me, it's not going to hurt my feelings.

 

what a bunch of malarky. I saw the Wii version of Force Unleashed and Xplay today and My 2001 IBM Aptiva with its ATI 9800 would allow the game to look better. Purely a marketing issue.

 

"But someone with a low-end PC would have a watered down experience, they would have to turn all the settings down and it wouldn't be the same game," said Suey."

bull. thats every pc game ever made, almost.

 

All CPUs are from IBM, GPUs are 2 for ATi (X360/Wii) the other for nV (PS3)

Because the Wii and PS3 run a different set of OGL instructions and have different available resources/limitations. The X360's XNA is verry portable, and they can do PC ports as easily (although the easiest for both is a PC port then to consol).

Different stengths, consoles very parralel and within a limited framework, PCs very powerful and adaptable, but all over the map features wise.

That's the major problem. What's your advantage if everyone's the same?

M$ have a vested interest in both PC and Console as long as it's within their framework; however Sony and Nintendo get more out of it if they are exclusive to consoles, and little advantage of porting an exclusive like FinalFantasy or Mario to PC.

 

I smell a poor excuse , clearly if the Wii can handle it low end PCs could handle it. They just did not want to release it for the PC because of piracy.

 

Just to be clear, the PS2, Wii, PSP, DS versions of the game are *different from Xbox 360 and PS3 versions for obvious reasons.

Of course, the PS2, Wii, PSP, DS versions won't have pretty graphics, but will most likely not have a decent physics engine behind them as well, no way that LucasArts is going to downscale the Euphoria engine to accommodate those versions.

Each of the versions has its own unique features, watch here:
http://www.gametrailers.com/gametrailerstv_player.php?ep=13&ch=1

 

just to add to my previous comment...


"...But someone with a low-end PC would have a watered down experience, they would have to turn all the settings down and it wouldn't be the same game," said Suey."

Then what do they call the Wii version?:


See More Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Various at IGN.com

 

Lots of people make up stuff about console and PC gaming, why add to the pile of fairy tales? If there's so many out there like Infinity Ward commenting on piracy, then that should be enough without making up more.

Why would I believe you? Working at Lucas Arts now are you?

C'mon, we have a quoted source stating what's been said before by the major IHVs and devlopers. Stick with those that have stated piracy is their reason; this is no different than if you were to spread FUD about hardware specs, saying company X or Y were cheating, faulty, etc. It's not about feeling, but the question would be why bother trying to ascribe a reason not stated by the article except to advance your own biased position? Kinda like saying AMD, nVidia, Epic and others have been lying about the issue.

The move to more basic PCs for the masses is something that has been discussed before, this is nothing new. Seriously people are desparate to find Piracy in everything, eh!

 

Hmm, last time I checked, this was an interview - not a fact book.

You've never heard of companies giving a pleasing excuse to cover up for a fact better kept secret?

I'm basing my opinion purely on logic - like I said, you have every right to disagree, but don't try to silence me. To me, not releasing a product based on poor sales due to piracy makes sense. Not releasing a product because "it won't run well on everything" doesn't. Companies release bad ports all the time (R6V).

However from he company's standpoint - saying that "we're doing this for your satisfaction, since it won't run well unless you shell out $4k for a computer" sound much better than "we think you're a bunch of pirates, and since you steal, we won't make money, and thus we won't develop the game".

I'm not saying that the entire decision is based on piracy, just that it had a role in coming to this conclusion. I believe to think that piracy didn't cross their minds one bit is a completely naive viewpoint.

 

And anyway who the hell play recent games on IGPs nowadays?

 

Sure I've heard of a bunch of conspiracy theories too, doesn't mean they have any more credability than Aleins at Area 51 giving us Velcro.

I'm not, any more so than you do. I'm countering your conspiracy theory with a request for evidence to support your theory, don't try to silence that request by pretending that what you said is in anyway supported like that which is explicit in the interview. The interview tried to find an implicit link, and it was rebuffed. Regardless of what you may think lies beneath he's speaking to a different side of the PC-console issue that often gets ignored by those who only own gaming capable rigs.

And to me not releasing it because of the 'lost sales' you'd never get makes as much/little sense, but considering that people have stated the same thing about a unified platform and the variety of min specs being a threat to PC gaming, just as predicted.

nVidia on low specs;
"All of the members know that unless we improve the experience for all and help the entire PC gaming industry, then we face the danger of publishers moving away from the platform."
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9407&Itemid=2

Mark Rein of Epic;
"You know my diatribe about Intel integrated graphics and how I think that's hurting the marketplace."
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=146449

I didn't say it doesn't cross their minds, but there's a difference between that and saying it's the reason it didn't come to PC. Like so many people you seem to ignore the fact that piracy on console is possible, and easier than you think, which is the naive viewpoint you and others seem to share as if consoles will solve piracy.

Reality is, you like the interviewer, want to read in something else into the decision, which is the same as someone spreading any other conspiracy theory. It's definitely not up to the same level as the actual responses. As if the revelation that the spec issue is finally hitting home weren't enough you need strawmen and red herrings.

That would be like treating HD4K and GT200 rumours as if they were 100% true and the same as actual released specs.

 

half the people with laptops probably have IGPS and want to play. seriously i can do WiC and CoD4 on my atix1270! but at really low settings

that is a light stick! not a saber! pfff. what a joke.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have a friend in the video game retail business and he made a good point about PC games. "Piracy is so easy, even my sister can do it. That is probably why we sell 20 xbox games to 1 PC game. And that PC game is usually from the WOW franchise."

 

I back up lithus 100% on this one. it makes sense if you think about it from a business perspective. We all know exactly why they decided not to release the game on the PC. there is only one reason.

they sat down and looked at how much money they were going to make from this game. they crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion that their net profit will go down if they release the game for the PC.

its definitely possible. for one thing, the cost of porting the game decently for the PC is still pretty high. its obviously a ton easier than it used to be, but its still a large cost. then you have to consider that PC sales are low in comparison to console sales, and they sell for LESS too.

plus, if someone pirates the game who might have bought it for a console or the PC, they lose money. really the worst case is that PC users who own consoles might start pirating the game. that really cuts into their sales. and even legitimate PC purchases can drag down sales figures, because console games sell for more.

thats why, often, PC releases are done after the bulk of console sales have already been made. in my opinion, this may just be a company tactic. they may very well be planning to release the game for the PC (not simultaneously) and it is in their best interest to make the consumer think otherwise, so that they don't wait for the PC release. they don't want people who might purchase the thing for a console to buy it or pirate it for the PC instead.

i think its the same thing with rockstar and gta. they just don't want to announce a pc release until the consoles have done their thing first. that way, at the end of the day, piracy isn't cutting into their profit, and they aren't fighting against their console sales.

sorry if my ideas aren't perfectly clear, but you should get the picture.

 

Who cares about the low end PC users, they know what they have in terms of performance and I mean expecting to play newer 3D games on IGP´s or low end dedicated GPU´s must be that they believe in god or something that the game would run awesome. Most people have higher end GPU´s anyway, mostly in the desktop world. Write the game like it should and allow the low end PC-users to move some sliders to get the game playable.

I mean no one can demand the game would look like the 360 or PS3 version on a IGP anyway. So what´s the deal, the deal is Piracy though they don´t admit it. And is it only PC that is pirated? Nooo the Consoles is getting pirated more and more and more. In a few years the Consoles is as badly pirated as the PC anyway.

If I want to play current 3D games and future I don´t stick with an IGP or low end dedicated GPU anyways. I would probably buy a high end desktop at least to be able to play the games, since an high end desktop is and can be cheaper than a low end laptop with an IGP anyways.

 

It's B$. I don't know what's wrong with their mind. Instead only somebody can play it on PC, only nobody can play it on PC. Yeah, right.

@masterchef341: I agreed with you, let's just hope that they will port the game to PC later. I can wait for 6 months instead of paying a few hundred bucks just to play the game.

 

I'm calling BS on the LA producer's responses.

An XBox 360/PS3 equivalent (from a gaming perspective) PC can easily be had for $400 -$600. People are buying/building them like crazy. There's way too large a qualified potential PC player base available for them to just pass on the industry that put them where they are today, just because a certain percentage of them would have to back off on the graphics settings a bit. The notion of them saying, " We don't want to sell copies to [thereby profit substantially from] that few hundred thousand PC gamers, because some of them might not be satisfied with the end result on their PC" flies completely in the face of their past offerings.

Be it piracy concerns or a simple sell-out to the shorter, more economical production cycle of console game development, they're trying to blow some serious wind up our collective butts. It's just a big flipping of the bird to the industry that made them.

 

Hmm maybe in the future they´ll write games for our laptops. Laptops is fixed hardware unless in some Sagers/Clevo´s, though they are the same hardware that you buy. This is like a console which is fixed hardware. Couldn´t game developers optimize games for say 8600m GT´s, 8700m GT´s 8800m GTX´s. I think since all notebook hardware is basically fixed this would be awesome and the games would perform really well. Anyone get what I am saying here.

I mean if games were optimized for notebooks there wouldn´t be a need for high end desktops at all. I think in the future when the notebooks has replaced the desktops we could see something like this.

 

I don't think it's that easy like you said. If they could do that, they have done it with desktop before. And there is still people using older gen card ... say GF go series 7.

If developer actually do it, I think there will be SW:FU for GF 8800M GTX, for 8700M, for 8600M and so on............... that will be one hell of a nightmare.

 

eh?

Does that mean the release of Crysis was wrong? I dont have a games console as i'm at uni so all i can play are games on my laptop.

I'd rather have the option of playing this some years down the line with a better rig than not being able to play it at all.

Thats such a BS excuse IMO, chances are avid gamers possess semi decent GPU's capable of playing this game at least in medium/low. We play Crysis after all!

If software developers stopped making power hungry games for the PC we would still be playing Crysis with the Riva TNT2. Its the constant cycle of better hardware/better software that keeps the industry moving. What a BS reason from that dude!

 

I agree with Lithus 100%.

GreatApe, to compare this viewpoint with a "conspiracy theory" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

----------

Lucas Arts do have a point here, most computers in the world come with integrated graphics. There is a huge disparity in terms of graphics power, try comparing a GMA 950 to any discrete video card.

But at the end of the day, they are simply lazy and don't want the hassle of porting their "euphoria" engine to the PC.

 

your all crazy!!!!

good thing i got a console

 

Heh, all I can say if they have time and money to "make" a semi-new game on the PSP, and PS2...they certainly have enough time and, or money to do the PC right as well.

IMO, it certainly boils down to piracy...It sure is big nowadays so, maybe they have point...But what can do they other than this?

 

That would make it a PC then.

 

Two things are at odds with that statement.
PS3 development costs are higher than M$'s cross-platform XNA, so it would be far more economical to develop a game for the X360 and Vista PC than to develop it for the X360 and PS3; and then ontop of that not to get the low dev cost of adding the PC for Vista? The main detraction from PC being tech support and compatability testing, which of course is higher for those who can't trouble shoot for themselves, which are the low end people asking why their GF6200 can't play Crysis at high resolution. At least Vista only kinda limits those tools as well. But as much as you want to blame piracy, you can blame all the people running XP instead of embracing Vista gaming. It's their fault too for not jumping onboard the Vista bandwagon.

As for pricing, the large chunk of the higher price of the console title goes to the console Mfr for the cost of the loss-leader console itself, which is sold at a loss to lock people into their medium, which means the developer and distributor doesn't see all of that money, M$ and Sony see their cut first.

Why would they when they can pirate for the console too instead?
As the most intrusive PC anti-piracy title showed, push on one side the other side takes up the slack, as shown when the first pirate release of Bioshock was for X360, not PC, not that it didn't eventually come to the PC also.

But of course consoles will solve the piracy issue and increase overall sales, and not simply put more of their console sales at greater risk with more attention from pirates, right?

 

You neglect the facts: very few people pirate console titles. Relatively, many more people pirate PC titles. Losses from console pirating is insignificant, losses from PC pirating can be very significant.

There's no such thing as not making a game because low end graphics solutions cannot run them. Crysis, Bioshock, World in Conflict, even CoD4 require pretty beefy solutions to run well.

What the companies gave in the interview was nothing more than an excuse - it's no secret that the console market is much more profitable than the PC market. Even after Sony and Microsoft take their cut.

 

Where are these facts you speak of? I think that was the point I was making.

Who's 'losing money', they may be forgoing potential sales, but most of those pirates weren't going to buy a title anyways, and few people who were planning to buy a title are willing to wait for the torrent, risk the hack/virus/whatever, etc. If anything it would be console makers that will actual lose money as they start out in the hole and need the price premium titles to dig themselves out of it, piracy cutting into that does lose them money, upfront.
Also you ignore the history that pirates move where the games are, to think the level of console piracy will remain low when the titles move there is very naive.

Wasn't that developers and Apple's whole gaming strategy of the 90s?
Less likely to be pirated than PC it should've been a hotbed for gaming.

No one is saying it isn't profitable, nor is that the argument, I think this is all about their profits, but not just for the reason you think. It's not more profitable just because the title sells for $10 more on Xbox/PS3 than on, if it were that easy, the BluRay and HD-DVD would be far more profitable than plain DVD, because they're, more expensive and harder to pirate.

How does 10 million copies on X360 console alone, and Y (let's say 2 million) number lost to piracy equal greater profits than 8-9 million on console, 3 million on PC and 5Y (10mil) pirated copies mean less money overall if it's cheap to port? If you focus on the 5Y pirates alone you think about the quoted $billion in 'lost sales' and not the millions in revenue from the ~12million copies sold. It's not like suddently all those pirates are going to buy copies of either regardless of your strategy.
It's not like you would get those 10 million pirates to suddenyl buy consoles or exclusively PC titles if you could end piracy in some way.

Your theory is fine in a general sense I don't even disagree that there are always those concerns to ALL platforms, and that supporting a fractured PC gaming market is also a huge factor in the decision to forgo PC titles that need to be optimized and supported for far more than a handful of configurations. Also PC gamers are more savy than most console gamers, so they're harder to milk for cash. Consolers already bought into their limitations when they purchased their consoles so it's not like you have to live up to their high expectations.

 

Their loss of 60$, your loss of one game you'll never be able to play.

 

PS3 is just about the most difficult platform ever to develop for. PS3 and 360 are very very different. Same with PS2 and Wii. PC is far easier and cheaper to develop for than any console. However, it also has a smaller gaming install base, and higher loss to pirates.