By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JaggedSac on 05 November 2009
Edit Thread
noname2200 said:
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:

 

 He should share this pearl of wisdom with Blizzard. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Perhaps Blizzard should share some of their money, since they do not need to ask anyone for any when they make their games :)  Unlike Splash Damage here.

Blizzard isn't its own publisher dude. They haven't been for years. Some publisher has to give them money.

In a separate post you pointed out that no one will give Splash Damage such funding because they (Splash Damage) "do not have the brand power to do so." That is correct. It's also personal to Splash Damage, rather than indicative of the market as a whole. Since I assume you posted that article as proof that the PC-only market is not viable, it seems you've defeated your own point now.

Name me a game that Blizzard did not publish(at least not in some form, because Blizzard usually handles their own North American ditributions, and gets others to do international).

 

Name me the companies making PC only AAA games(budget wise, not score).  I am actually interested in this, as I do not particularly know.  Which somewhat leads credence to my point.

Blizzard doesn't publish most games.

But to address the question you meant, I was referring to Blizzard's non-American operations, where they've had to use Vivendi, and now Activision's, services as the publisher.

As to your second question, "Blizzard" is the correct response. You keep claiming that PC-only can't be done successfully with big titles, but when confronted with the most obvious example of why you're wrong, you fall behind "they don't count." I don't think you've articulated a reason why, but I'm sure you have a good one. And by "good one" I don't mean "they're so good at what they do."

I'd also recommend looking into titles like STALKER, the Total War series, and Warhammer 40k. MMOs are also ridiculously expensive titles to make, but you've already conceded those. If you need more titles, head to PCGamer.com. They've got a nice list.

The facts disprove your assertion. Now, if you're willing to tone things down to "fewer and fewer huge-budget completely PC-exclusive releases that are not in any of these genres and are not from any of this list of publishers and I reserve another qualifier here are coming out nowadays" I would cheerfully concede.

Nowadays is the KEY qualifier here.  Compare the number of PC only AAA titles that are getting released now, to 5, 10, or 15 years ago.  Sure, there are some, but they are few and far between.

 

And as I said, MMOs have yet to be proven effective on consoles so of course they will be PC centric.  The same can be said of strategy games like Total War(although Halo Wars and LOTR:BFME2 were most likely profitable).  Until they are proven effective, why would someone bother making them.  Even listing these, there are a sad number of PC only AAA titles.

 

So maybe it is only for FPS, the PC bread and butter for the past 15 years, that has started to wain on the AAA PC exclusive front.  There is now STALKER and Crysis.  And Crysis is now going multiplat if I am not mistaken.

 

And I wasn't saying Blizzard doesn't count.  I am saying Blizzard is an exception that has the fan following and coffers to make PC exlusive titles.  They don't need to go to someone and ask for money.  If you think they rely on Vivendi or Activision to handle anything other than distribution, I believe you are mistaken.  Other devs are not relying on only distribution cost handling, but development cost handling as well.