Exactly.

Because indies don't have to pay salaries for an entire studio?

indie doesn't mean you don't have a studio and a real team working on a game... there are solo\very small developers but there are a whole lot of indie and small studios too, they're maybe the vast majority

So you think he's lying when he says "As a developer we do not have final say in the SKU plan for our games"?
That doesn't seem like bullshit to me. I'm curious what makes you think so.

Obviously there's a cost/return analysis being done by the publisher. If porting was free, we'd have every game released on linux too. It's not, so we don't.

Point me to an indie developer which produces multi-platform games to the same scale as Double Fine and I'll think you have a point. Until then...

The problem isn't that they can't afford to make games on the PC. The problem is that they're developing for multiple platforms and the purse-holder has decided that porting the game to the PC isn't cost effective.

As to the reasons why, it's simple. When developing for a given platform, the costs can be loosely defined as follows:
1) Develop/tune the underlying technology (graphic engine, audio, physics, etc)
2) Create the content for the game (art, audio, level design, story/scripts, etc)
3) Test the technology
4) Test the content

Unless you have a technically undemanding game based on a well-established cross-platform middleware platform, you generally have to go back and revisit all four of these when you port your game to a new platform. And even then, there can be issues: look at the delay (and performance issues) when Rockstar ported the GTA series over to the PC, despite the fact that they were based on the Renderware platform.

Admittedly, on the PC, you have something of an advantage, in that there's no need to satisfy the demands/test-criteria of the console manufacturer. However, there's significantly more technical issues: you have two processor families (AMD/Intel), three GPU families (Intel/ATi/Nvidia), several chipset families and a handful of sound ships. And that's before you start to consider varying CPU speeds and the wide variety of resolutions/controllers which can be used. And the wide range of driver/DirectX versions which may be installed...

In short, testing games for the PC is complicated and expensive. Throw in the fact that the market is perceived to be in decline *and* has a reputation for piracy, and it's not too surprising that the financier doesn't want to spend money on it.

Conversely, indie developers are generally self-funded, so have more freedom to choose their platforms. They also tend to have far less content and often use cross-platform middleware, which may not be that performant but does help to abstract away a lot of the complexities which an in-house engine will have to deal with.

And there's also the fact that indie developers often do less testing of their games, for the simple reason that it's a significant cost. Generally, people are willing to give an indie title a bit more slack - Gratuitous Space Battles is one such example. However, it can often go the other way, as Stardock found out when they launched Demigod...

Excellent breakdown of porting costs.

because the whole industry is conspiring to end the joy of noble PC Gamers right?

The cost doesn't completely come from making a shippable product, a big chunk goes to actually getting it out in the stores, and probably en even bigger chunk goes to marketing. You could share alot of marketing between the SKU's, but for each you'd also have to have specific ads (in PC Gamer, etc)

And what exactly would it be an excuse for? Laziness? PC Hatred? A conspiracy? C'mon, this is Gamasutra, where intelligent people discuss the business side of gaming.

An XBLA type game wouldn't be trying to get into retail stores. They'd sell it through steam or Live or some other digital distribution method.

I'd bet the ease of piracy on the PC is part of it. If the game is available for PC and XBLA, the amount of people who'd pirate it on PC instead of pay for it on XBLA could be significant.

What has changed? Software piracy is as rampant as ever.

Piracy is unimportant as long as the sales are good enough.

For a AAA title that is true, but for a game that may only sell in the tens or hundreds of thousands units?

the way of getting games out as DL and giving people a guitar item in tf2 or something to sell it.

Right, tell me that piracy is any better on the consoles? That is an outright fabrication. Piracy is there on all platforms and at the end of the day sold units it the real issue.

Majority of console gamers you mean.

Majority of console gamers in rich countries actually.

Here in Brazil, the CONSOLE gamers have PS2 usually (and it still sell a lot), the same applies to China, India, Russia, etc...

And then, if I ask 50 people that play games (not the ones that claim to be "Gamers"), I am sure only 10 will own a console, about more 10 will own a handheld, and another 10 will own a smartphone, but all of them will have a PC.

Ah, fair point.

That said, installed base is not much important, otherwise we would all be doing tabletop games, since the world has billions of tables.

Good points all around, still I'm surprised they aren't looking at online games. Facebook isn't the only venue in the world for that ... and it's not like XBL and PSN are sustainable, lucrative business models for most developers either. I think if you went to investors now and said you're starting a company to make just XBL/PSN games, they've laugh you right out of the office.

but most people don´t own a PC for recreative use, the average assistant or whatever more likely want less time in front of a pc..

It´s not like pc is a symbol of good times in the collective imaginary of global population. I love PC games but i think PC it´s gonna keep it´s trend of decreasing core game market.

Did you know Steam has more users than XBLA? And Steam is only one (even if the biggest) of the digital delivery platforms on PC. I bet the digital delivery platforms on PC summed up can be compared to the whole PSN\XBLA\Wiiware market

I think alot of the problem with PC gaming is people tend to think its far more expensive than it realy is.
Most people think you need a realy high end PC to get console quality results and thats far from the reality of PC power.
Most current gen console games run 720P at 30ish FPS that can be done on a pc system thats quite old. aka cheap.

Maybe a company like CD Projekt can show there is a will & a way to make money without the problems from DMR. The 1st title had its DMR removed in an official patch & witcher2 us launching without a DMR. I have little intrest in the game but may buy it just to support the ideal.
I still have hope since the pc titles that are now known as some of the best console titles are always better on pc.
Maybe im dreaming PC still has a chance?.
I might add some of the console titles that hit pc are indeed better on the pc as well, a perfect current example is dead rising2. Even my old "P4 single core" pc has a better average frame rate than the 360 or ps3 versions & it looks much cleaner due to the blur effects being turned off..

In theory old PCs can run nice-looking, decent frame-rate games. Valve still pulls it off. But most games that do appear on PCs are cheap console ports that run like CRAP on anything but a powerhouse system. I don't even bother with PC gaming anymore for that reason, even though I was a hardcore PC gamer for a good 10 years.

Over half of the games available on steam right now can be played on a $300 expensive Dell (excluding monitor). And it's not just old games, but also brand new games.

Christopher,

I don't think anyone's arguing that you can't make money from the PC market: the issue is that it's become very stratified. E.g. take a look at the PC sales charts from February 2010:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Top-20-Selling-Retail-PC-Games-npd,9 913.html

With one exception (Mumbo Jumbo Assortment: a casual bundle) this breaks down into the following:

1) The Sims
2) MMORPG titles
3) First Person shooters
4) D&D-style Role Playing Games

Tim/Double Blind doesn't make any of those: he makes third-party adventure games. Throw in the high cost of sanity checking and the prevalence of piracy and I'm not surprised the investor doesn't want to take the risk.

I'd also be intrigued to know what the developer can do to make a PC port more cost effective. The biggest cost is in testing and debugging, and that's the riskiest thing to try and cut corners on...

You make a very good point regarding where PC games make money (and where they don't).

I recognize I'm about to point to a AAA franchise here, but the makers of Bioshock recently stated that they are producing the newest installment with PC in mind from the start to make porting easier later.

Technical stuff aside, the real issue I have is with his attitude that comes across as "I'm the just the dev! I don't get to decide the finer points of my contract with the publisher."

With self-publishing on PC being a relatively easy option due to the handful of digital distribution platforms, I'm saddened to see a solid dev act as if he has little say in the matter of where his game is landing. I think this is the age when devs can (and should) hold the cards because of easy distribution to PC and iOS.

Because his statement is factually correct I don't disagree with him, but it's his hopeless attitude that makes me sad.

With any negotiable contract, you give and you get. Not too long ago, the major publishers held all of the cards because retail was the only distribution channel, and retailers would only stock games from major publishers. With digital distribution, developers have more leverage; however, successfully publishing on consoles more often than not means going through a major.

Developing AAA-grade titles takes considerable up-front resource and while Tim's games may be critically acclaimed, they've not had much in the way of commercial success. So I'm guessing that the number of people prepared to front money is lower than it could otherwise be.

All told, I'm not surprised he's presenting the situation in the way he is...

I agree. What a bizarre rant.

This site was much nicer to visit prior to some of its articles being linked to mainstream fluff sites like that Coat-taco -- or whatever it's called, as that brought back it's share of kids and their not so constructive comments.

The best part of your simple ... , is that you gained a fanboy named Joe.

Ming, let me bring you up to speed.

First off, a $40 - $50 GPU like the 9600 GT easily bests anything any current console can muster up and even a $50 mobo from a good company like ASUS has built in 5.1 surround sound. For less than $500 I can build you a PC that would out class your favorite console on all fronts. The most expensive part would be the OS if you don't already own a license and if you spend a few hundred more, your PC will be leaps and bounds more capable than something as limited as a console. And no, it's not that difficult to setup, nor will you need to endlessy upgrade it, unless that's your thing? Some guys invest in newer PCs not because their prior system couldn't handle the current games, but because they do so as more of a hobby.

With consoles and their dated hardware in the same pipeline as PC games, they've actually held back the requirements, so it doesn't take much at all to play the latest and greatest at a much higher framerate, detail level, and resolution than what any current console can handle. It only takes a low-end inexpensive PC that can use ANY input.

"Low" end PCs don't struggle at all on the games that tax out the XBox as an example. If one wants to build a PC that's on par with a console, the mentioned GPU from above is actually an overkill.

Oh, and if we really wanted to plug our PCs into our HD-TVs(I hope that's not a surprise that PC gamers also have TVs?), we have that option and some of us do use it as our monitor. HDMI out is available on most GPUs, and even the older ones included DVI-HDMI adapters -- and they even support pass through of the audio, which makes things simpler to setup.

Anyways, more rambles, but really... You should consider PC gaming along side console gaming. That's what I do, it's just that my PC does have the awesome graphics, but more importantly, every type of input, so most of the games just play better on it.

All great and valid points, but you have the knowledge to create an affordable x86 that easily outclasses consoles, whereas most consumers don't. Consoles are plug and play. In the minds of the mass consumer, simpler equals better. Sorry, bro.

@ Nathan,

No need to apologize. What you said was not offensive.

Are you a mass consumer? Do you honestly know any one person that fits perfectly into just one category?


I agree that in some cases what you say is dead on. What I've also noticed in some cases, is that it's all about priorities. From my experience, consoles fit nicely for my friends that don't always have the time to game, nor want to make the time. It's sometimes more convenient to game on a console, but then again, the same can be said for a PC.

I get your drift about consoles being plug-in-play(Which of course came from comps.), but it's not rocket science to game on a PC, let alone get one setup. It's definitely way easier now than it was years back. There are plenty of dedicated consumer gaming rigs for those that don't want to build one and most gamers are savvy enough to do a bit of research before plunging into any purchase. If I know console only guys, I'm sure console guys have to know of PC guys, which could ask for help if they did want to do the PC gaming route. If anything, the internet is very resourceful and :)

Anyways, there's way more to this and yes, the main stream will always go for what's perceived as easier, especially when it's marketed to them. But it's probably safe to say that most gamers are a step above someone shopping for just an appliance and I bet that most of use own more than just one gaming setup, or at least have friends that fill in the gaps.

cool story bro, problem is a 9600gt it´s worthless to play mainstream games like Bad Company 2 or COD at a decent graphic settings, more hardware power doesn´t mean a better experience all the time.

@ Omar,

Cool story bro... I've never read that before. It must be preprogrammed into some of you younger guys? Since you refer to what I wrote as a story, do you then refer to a Tweet as short story?

Anyways mainstream fluff boy, a 9600 GT has no issues running either mentioned game at a higher detail level and framerate than a console. So what you're saying, is that consoles are worthless -- If "you" say so...

And I agree, more hardware power doesn't mean a better experience. I've been gaming for over 30 years now, so yes, I know this first hand. Since you were cliché with your cool-story-bro comment, have you ever encountered this one? "DUH"!

*double post*

I've no doubt a console beating PC will cost less that $500 now, but how much would that PC have cost 5 years ago when the 360 launched?

I bought my PS2 for I think around £300 in 2001, I was still playing games major games releases on it until 2008. Could you honestly say the same about a PC?

@ Giro,

5 years back was a different story, it was 5 years ago. ;) I only commented about PCs and cost in the first place, because of Ming's comments.

What you state about your PS2 is the advantage of a dedicated gaming appliance, but in 2008, the major releases for it were wearing thin -- if not for the Wii and PSP, it might have been abandoned earlier on? And 2 years later, what's being made for it? In order to play the games PCs were playing in 2008, you would have needed to buy a new console.

PC hardware may not be the same as it was in 2001, but contrary to what some would like to believe, it will always have support, it's a computer. Consoles will come and go, PCs will simply change/evolve with the times. Best to use both if one can, which is where I stand.

I still play games on my PC from the eighties and nineties, does that count? :)

*another double post*

Well said!

Not only are you generalising a lot of things (why should I blame myself when I haven't touched a cracked PC game in decades?) but you're also perfectly describing a vicious circle without realising it yourself. Bad ports coupled to insane forms of DRM not only turn people away from PC, they drive them straight into the arms of illegal copies/downloads (because they offer a better service). Which isn't the reaction they should make of course (they should just stop buying) but that's the reality. Publishers see the piracy numbers and overreact themselves by spending even less on a PC version and by applying even more DRM which limits our basic consumer rights (I dare you to try and trade in a recent PC game, it's not the gamer's fault that hasn't been possible for several years now on PC).

No, I can turn your point around so easily it's clear to see the state of PC gaming is in a big impasse: on one side you have certain PC gamers not willing to cough up money for lacklustre ports which never feel like they've been properly customised for PC. They still want to play popular titles though so they pirate it which isn't the way they should handle this. Nowadays even the game design itself is focused on control pads and limited hardware capabilities which, even for a shooter, has big implications on the ambitions of the PC version.

On the other hand you see big publishers panicking and spreading tales of doom because they think every illegal download is a lost customer (which isn't true at all). They've got a point in a business sense somehow if you just look at the sales but during all these years every single one of them has failed to see what is possible on PC, they NEVER approached it in a specific way and have wasted so many chances on a very open platform. It's quite depressing to see only Valve (Steam), Stardock (Impulse), Paradox (GamersGate) and some other obscure entrepeneurs thrive on PC because they did it their way right from the start and never backed down on that. What did big publishers like EA or Ubisoft do? In a decade of online focus they've tried almost every third party online matchmaking service you can imagine, they managed to launch and destroy several online services of their own, multiple user accounts for different games with several user registration hassles all thrown away now, websites or product pages for their immense back catalogue on PC are nowhere to be found anymore. In all honesty, it has very much been a lesson of how not to tie gamers to your products and franchises. I think you can even state it's pretty remarkable the PC market isn't dead yet, PC gamers have had to put up with a lot of things that you can't logically explain to normal people. Horrifying is what I would call the fact that these big-money firms need a hand from MS, Sony and Nintendo to put a decent user service up. They've lost profit on PC by mismanagement and not having a definitive vision or even understanding the quips of PC gamers. Just blaming piracy is a very silly thing to do.

In the end both sides will have to make serious compromises to get a flourishing and varied PC market up again, one in which digital distribution and retail copies should go hand in hand. It's the only way out, it's just a pity not all companies (not even Valve if you look at how they treat boxed versions) and dissatisfied gamers understand this. Right now I think it's up to the few independent studios left on PC to crawl back, getting a loyal audience and expanding again, both through DD and retail.

There are certainly some PC gamers that will never care for developers and will never buy a game but you can't possibly estimate with how many they are, or even discern how much of an impact they have. I am pretty sure there are plenty of console folks who are just as unscrupulous. The worst thing to do though is to say we're all like that. Pity yourself mate.

I think people are more than willing to pay for a quality product that is reasonabley priced for it's content. I mean this piracy thing seems like the used game issue. The industry blaming these things for huge loses. Their have been popular games, even recently, that didn't get pirated out the waazoo. People don't pirate just because "Haha, I got it for free!", that's a smaller percentage that do that. An alarming number of people do it because "I want to see if it's a bad port" "I want to see if it's a bad game so I don't waste money".

In my personal opinion, I think it boils down to maximizing profit to the highest degree possible and at the least content as possible they can get away with. I really believe if we had quality PC titles more frequently, and less terrible ports, and PC gamers could build trust back with developers, we'd see a sharp decline in Pirating.

"When you need to sell millions of copies of a game just to break even on the production and marketing costs"

When you need to sell millions of units to break even, you need to change your business model.

"The big AAA titles see piracy rates of 90% or higher."

And you get that 90% number from which reliable source? That's the type of made up number marketing uses to get devs to waste time implemented draconic DRM measures.

Um, steam DRM isn't 'strong'. Every steam game is available for 'free' pretty much on the day it's released. Only benefit steam has it the perception that it's DRM works, so devs feel safer putting their money there.

The key though is that any multiplayer / online component generally can't be pirated. I'd bet that's one of the reasons Minecraft sold so many units.