PDA

View Full Version : TFU for PC?


RC-1162
06-04-2007, 03:18 PM
Does anyone feel the game should or will possibly be released on the PC anytime soon? I believe its too good a game for them not to spend the little extra cash into developing a PC version, since a LOT of gamers prefer the PC over consoles. If anybody gets any news about a PC version please post it here.

Why exactly did they not want to develop a PC version up front? Was it anything related to costs? Or something else?

Diego Varen
06-04-2007, 03:35 PM
While it would be good for PC, I prefer consoles, since there is no worry of crashing, etc. I suppose that Lucas should make it for PC though, since there more money could be made for LucasArts.

Gargoyle King
06-04-2007, 03:42 PM
Does anyone feel the game should or will possibly be released on the PC anytime soon? I believe its too good a game for them not to spend the little extra cash into developing a PC version, since a LOT of gamers prefer the PC over consoles. If anybody gets any news about a PC version please post it here.

Why exactly did they not want to develop a PC version up front? Was it anything related to costs? Or something else?

It probably wouldn't be cost-efficient for LA to do so anyway - people would need a very high-end spec computer to probs even run the game; a high-end spec comp that generally people can't afford or are unwilling to afford.

stoffe
06-04-2007, 03:45 PM
Does anyone feel the game should or will possibly be released on the PC anytime soon? I believe its too good a game for them not to spend the little extra cash into developing a PC version, since a LOT of gamers prefer the PC over consoles. If anybody gets any news about a PC version please post it here.

Why exactly did they not want to develop a PC version up front? Was it anything related to costs? Or something else?

From what I remember one of the developer said that they weren't doing a PC version since the average PC wasn't powerful enough to handle the game. Sounds a bit odd to me since they do a PS2 version which isn't exactly state of the art hardware by now (even though the average PC owner hardly have the monster hardware some of the newer games today tend to require). I don't remember where I read that though, so take it with a grain of salt. :)

I'd guess it's probably easier and cheaper to develop for consoles as well since you know what hardware the player will have, and console makers often give extensive support to developers working on a product for their platform. Games, especially highly anticipated ones, often tend to sell better for consoles than for PC as well. Perhaps not too surprising since a good gamer PC can be prohibitively expensive in comparison, even though you can use it for much more in addition to playing games.

Kind of ironic in a way that the rapid advances of the PC hardware manufacturers and subsequent high requirements of many PC games are killing the viability of the PC platform as a gaming market. :)

I hope they eventually reconsider and do a PC version though since STFU looks very interesting from what I've seen so far. It would be a shame to not be able to play it.

RC-1162
06-04-2007, 03:56 PM
^
Agreed. Although, having played several games on my friends' PS2 systems, I personally feel a PC game is easier to handle, since there are much more mappable keys. Won't TFU have many different functions, powers, actions, etc? How will they map all that into a single controller?

Jamps
06-04-2007, 03:56 PM
Gargoyle_King and stoffe are right, there minimum specs required to run the game would be too great for the average PC user. (I remember hearing one of the developers say that.)

Personally, I would love to play it on the PC. I hope they reconsider.

Titanius Anglesmith
06-04-2007, 04:45 PM
As I've said before, if the PS2, PSP, and DS can handle a less "amped" version of TFU, so can practically any PC. They need to think before they say things about how only next-gen consoles can handle the new engines, when they can clearly release a less advanced version of it (no DMM or Euphoria or anything else of the sort) for PCs.

Besides, they are completely wrong about how only next-gen consoles can handle the new engines. Look at games like Crysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis) and tell me if that looks any worse than TFU.

CLONECOMMANDER501
06-04-2007, 05:18 PM
If they think its too powerful why did they bother making Empire At War.

Emperor Devon
06-04-2007, 07:13 PM
If there will be a PC version we probably won't be hearing about it for a while. Most games are ported to different platforms months or years after release. :(

If they think its too powerful why did they bother making Empire At War.

EaW's graphics aren't really that spectacular. That and the fact there hadn't been a SW RTS since Battlegrounds gave it a pretty good market.

Negative Sun
06-04-2007, 07:16 PM
From what I remember one of the developer said that they weren't doing a PC version since the average PC wasn't powerful enough to handle the game. Sounds a bit odd to me since they do a PS2 version which isn't exactly state of the art hardware by now (even though the average PC owner hardly have the monster hardware some of the newer games today tend to require). I don't remember where I read that though, so take it with a grain of salt. :)
Totally agree stoffe...It was posted here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=178887) btw, so no grains of salt need to be taken ;)

Jeff
06-04-2007, 08:06 PM
I would like to see a PC version, but I'm almost sure that they have said they will not be developing one as stoffe stated.

Negative Sun
06-04-2007, 08:07 PM
I blame Bill Gates for this!

Char Ell
06-04-2007, 09:07 PM
As I've said before, if the PS2, PSP, and DS can handle a less "amped" version of TFU, so can practically any PC. They need to think before they say things about how only next-gen consoles can handle the new engines, when they can clearly release a less advanced version of it (no DMM or Euphoria or anything else of the sort) for PCs. Yeah, I think they could find a better way to phrase their response to the "Why isn't LA making a PC version of TFU?" question. My question to you though is would you (or any PC gamer) be satisfied with playing a PC version of TFU without DMM or euphoria or with dumbed down versions of those technologies? I'm thinking that is what the PS2 and handheld console versions of TFU are going to get and as for myself I wouldn't be satisfied if a PC version of TFU had inferior graphics to the PS 3 and Xbox 360.
Besides, they are completely wrong about how only next-gen consoles can handle the new engines. Look at games like Crysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis) and tell me if that looks any worse than TFU.I think you're comparing two different things here. You'll need a DirectX 10 graphics card to get the full experience out of Crysis. DX 10 cards have been out less than a year. IIRC the Xbox 360 uses a graphics API based on DX 9. Remember the PS 3 and Xbox 360 were designed to support multi-threaded games and can process 6 or more threads at a time. Most PC's out there only support 1 or 2 threads. However without knowing what LucasArts came up with as a minimum spec for a PC version of TFU then I think it's hard to say they've got it completely wrong.

I'm very disappointed LucasArts isn't developing TFU for PC. It sounds like this is going to be a great story that bridges the time between Eps. III and IV. I hope they do end up porting it to PC at some point the road but think this isn't likely as LucasArts hasn't released a game for platforms it wasn't originally announced for in quite some time.

Titanius Anglesmith
06-04-2007, 09:38 PM
My question to you though is would you (or any PC gamer) be satisfied with playing a PC version of TFU without DMM or euphoria or with dumbed down versions of those technologies?
If I knew for a fact that LA would never release a PC version of TFU with all the advanced technologies, I would gladly settle for a dumbed down version. At least I would be able to play the game. Obviously, it wouldn't be nearly as fun, but it should be just as good as the JK series, which I happen to like very much.

It's just not worth the $400-$600 that it takes to buy a next-gen console to have the ability to play one game.

Sabretooth
06-05-2007, 12:08 AM
I would definitely want it for the PC, being a PC-exclusive gamer myself. But I know that the prospects are ridiculously low.

Thor the Bassis
06-05-2007, 04:32 AM
LA won't release a dumbed down version - they'd have to re do the whole engine practically and it would definitely detract from the ability to smash everything up and do all the cool things with the environment and force. It also wouldn't be cost effective to re do the engine the worse gameplay in the new engine would mean it wouldn't actually sell as well.

I think the main problem isn't graphics - its processing the effects the force has on the environment which basically means releasing two different games - one with all the sub processes for throwing people through walls and moving the environment around - and one without.

Graphics are too overrated in games nowadays - we all know the best games we end up going back to are good stories and gameplay - thats why classic games stay (x-wing vs tie fighter?).

As for new gen I think with the release of Halo 3 later this year and Force Unleashed next year I might buy in just after Christmas when the price will proberably be lowest and go for an Xbox 360 (better and cheaper).

slornie
06-05-2007, 06:43 AM
i would like to see it released on PC, maybe they will sometime after the initial release on consoles, give people time to update PCs, when they have got some money in from it to invest in a port

Negative Sun
06-05-2007, 09:17 AM
LA won't release a dumbed down version
They are (http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/)

It's being developed by someone else though, which is even more confusing cause they might as well ask someone else to do the development for the PC, even if it is Obsidian lol

RC-1162
06-05-2007, 10:42 AM
The link doesn't mention anything about a dumbed down version. Am I not looking hard enough?

Jeff
06-05-2007, 10:46 AM
I'm guessing he means the PS2 and portables version, since theres no way it will be able to function the same as the next-gen console versions.

Negative Sun
06-05-2007, 11:02 AM
^ Yep

It's called reading between the lines (aka common sense) ;)

A PS2 version would be more than doable on any of today's mid to top range PCs...
Why not make it with the ability to turn off certain features even? Like so many other PC games do (KotOR for example, my PC can run it, which is all I need, but I've yet to play it on a system that can run it with every setting maxed out)

Gargoyle King
06-05-2007, 06:34 PM
EaW's graphics aren't really that spectacular. That and the fact there hadn't been a SW RTS since Battlegrounds gave it a pretty good market.

:lol: The only decent RTS game to come out on the SW market, other attempts such as Galactic Battlegrounds & Force Commander were pretty shabby to say the least....

Jae Onasi
06-06-2007, 09:48 AM
If they have to code the game on a computer before they ever create the different platforms, and it works on their own computers, which admittedly probably have high end hardware, I don't understand why they can't use that for a PC version.

RC-1162
06-06-2007, 01:16 PM
Is it absolutely necessary for high end graphics? I mean, something on the average level of KotOR or whatever would be totally acceptable by majority of PC gamers, right?

:lol: The only decent RTS game to come out on the SW market, other attempts such as Galactic Battlegrounds & Force Commander were pretty shabby to say the least....
While I haven't played EaW, I have played Battlegrounds and loved it. It's not at all shabby, IMO.

Thor the Bassis
06-07-2007, 08:27 AM
I dont think the graphics are the issue. I agree graphics aren't necessary and if it was simply re doing the graphics I think they'd release it for PC.

Although they are programming the game on computers they are extremely high end computers as all programmers use for new gen - this means its not that it wont work on computers its just there are only a few people in the world who can afford a computer that will run it. The engine has been designed for the processor of Xbox 360 and PS3. No computer owned by a gamer can run as many threads and processes as the new gen consoles and so the computer wouldn't be able to run the basic engine. Its like not being able to do the maths - it doesn't matter what numbers there are if you dont know the method then you can't work it out. It would mean computers catching up with new gen to be able to run it (10 years, 20 years or if your serious invest in a massive computer that has the capability to run all sorts of console disks - basically the computers they're using to program it).

If you think about it to work out the physics of a person flying through the air and crashing through three walls all of which cause the person to spin in a different way and speed then the basics are pretty hard even without the textures.

Negative Sun
06-08-2007, 07:06 PM
Point missed, it's still being done for the PS2, which can be rivaled by any mainstream computer with a decent GPU nowadays...

CLONECOMMANDER501
06-08-2007, 09:44 PM
If there will be a PC version we probably won't be hearing about it for a while. Most games are ported to different platforms months or years after release. :(



EaW's graphics aren't really that spectacular. That and the fact there hadn't been a SW RTS since Battlegrounds gave it a pretty good market.


Ehem

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k219/CLONECOMMANDER50/EAWTerrainEditor2007-04-2008-41-24-.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k219/CLONECOMMANDER50/swfoc2007-02-0319-57-17-03.jpg

Ctrl Alt Del
06-08-2007, 09:53 PM
It's fate. Some games are just not worth the trouble of releasing on another console (the PC, that would be). A lot of money is wasted on the conversion, and the developers and distributor even have to pay a tax for it. They don't think that the normal PC player would have that playing style (They think, is it true, I wonder?).

Gargoyle King
06-10-2007, 05:31 PM
It's fate. Some games are just not worth the trouble of releasing on another console (the PC, that would be). A lot of money is wasted on the conversion, and the developers and distributor even have to pay a tax for it. They don't think that the normal PC player would have that playing style (They think, is it true, I wonder?).

Yes it's not just graphics that have to be addressed, it's porting for a start which is always an expensive business and porting would require a complete refigurement of the controls to fit the format and parts o the game would have to be redesigned (control tutorials etc). making the initial game project more time-consuming and expensive. I think this is the key reason why LA decided not to release for PC, as they weighed out the pros & cons of doing so and the cons came out on top.

@ all the people who only play PC & Console haters (i play PC & Console); you'll have to get over the fact that TFU is not coming out for PC and probably won't ever come out for the PC so you'll have to deal with it, be stubborn and stick to PC (thus missing out this obvious great gaming opportunity) or you can atleast conform to playing consoles to experience it, it's your choice. At the end of the day you don't own LA and thus LA will do as they see fit with their license, period.

MachineCult
06-10-2007, 06:06 PM
Ehem

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k219/CLONECOMMANDER50/EAWTerrainEditor2007-04-2008-41-24-.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k219/CLONECOMMANDER50/swfoc2007-02-0319-57-17-03.jpg

You haven't played enough games if you think that those are spectacular graphics.

I'm glad that it isn't coming out on the PC because then I won't be tempted to buy it instead of on the Xbox.

PoiuyWired
06-12-2007, 05:15 AM
Well) The control refitting would be quite minimal really. Since the Input button is configurable (I sure hope so). And the tutorial... well, its remapping of a few text.

Its like looking into the files of ps2/whatever tutorial on your PC. The files are there, just that they are not shown, with dialogue changes.

As for graphics. Yes I can see the problem here for a bit. Since console for some reason does not usually give you the liberty of changing graphics quality. Well, mostly not, I have seen a few games that is friendly enough allowing turning on/off of cool effects, so I can shut off some of them when I get really tired of it, usually those uber heatwave effects and annoying screen-shakes from fps types.

CraZy_B
06-16-2007, 12:22 PM
If they wanted PC gamers to buy it they would have to make a lot more settings, like medium and low quality models, textures, effects, terrain etc. to make it more accessible. That takes a lot of time, they almost have to redo the whole game again.
It wouldn't be hard really, just time consuming. They go for the profit$.

I have an Xbox360 and will probably get it for the story but I don't really have high hopes otherwise. No console game has delivered such fun experiences as my PC has so far.

PoiuyWired
06-17-2007, 02:15 PM
Well, if they release them a year later then most non-gimp computers would be up to par. They just need to set options to allow for even better effects then, no need fo the new downgrade options.

Gargoyle King
06-17-2007, 04:00 PM
No console game has delivered such fun experiences as my PC has so far.Well perhaps the best games ever crafted are PC games and some of the best console games out there are just ports of their PC counterparts so PC games do definately have a major stance in the game industry (i tend to play both console & PC however, get the best of both worlds ;) )

PoiuyWired
06-18-2007, 03:17 PM
Super Smash Brothers, Original Mario Brothers, pong, Bio Hazard, Monster Hunters, KoF/StreetFighter Series, most decent shoot'em'ups etc

What PC Ports?

I mean, Both PC and console have some really darn nice games, in different ways. I would love to see nice PC port of TFU, partly cause I like semi fps control to be Keyboard and Mouse And BECAUSE OF MODS!!! :)

CraZy_B
06-22-2007, 07:42 AM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Wars-Force-Unleashed-PC/dp/B000NT752O

What the hell?

Char Ell
06-22-2007, 09:59 AM
Interesting. IMO this is likely a goof by Amazon UK. Notice they still have the game's release date as November 30, 2007. It's been known for at least 3 months that the game was pushed out to Spring 2008. The Force Unleashed for PC sure would be nice to have though...

Jeff
06-22-2007, 11:47 AM
I agree, its probably a mistake on their part.

RC-1162
06-22-2007, 11:59 AM
Why don't someone try ordering it? :D

Sabretooth
06-23-2007, 05:11 AM
While I haven't played EaW, I have played Battlegrounds and loved it. It's not at all shabby, IMO.

Its shabbiness lies in the fact that it is nothing more than a Star Wars flavoured AoE2 rip-off. I mean, I've never seen a game rip-off another as much as Battlegrounds.

PoiuyWired
06-23-2007, 10:26 AM
Its more like a "game patch for AoE" than a rip off. Yes it is that deprived of any originality whatsoever. Well, the story may be nice I will give you that. I mean, good to see a DarkSide Chiss Lady.

HappyMojo
06-28-2007, 02:26 PM
I'm upgrading my PC hardware for Crysis near its release date, and I think that a lot of people will do the same. So I guess that the hardware requirements wouldn't be a hurdle for me if a PC-version of TFU became available.

Also, if you look a few years back, people upgraded for HL2 and Doom3 (including me). So get the ******* game on the PC market ;)

DarthKalEl
07-12-2007, 09:21 PM
I don’t know, but if quad core CPU, 4 GB of memory and 8XXX NVIDIA graphic isn’t enough for TFU, what is? I just can’t believe that PS3 and XB360 are so much more powerful that that

Cometer
07-13-2007, 10:41 PM
Gargoyle_King and stoffe are right, there minimum specs required to run the game would be too great for the average PC user. (I remember hearing one of the developers say that.)

Personally, I would love to play it on the PC. I hope they reconsider.

It probably wouldn't be cost-efficient for LA to do so anyway - people would need a very high-end spec computer to probs even run the game; a high-end spec comp that generally people can't afford or are unwilling to afford.


From the posts I have read it seams to me many people don't realize how powerful a mid-range PC is today. And by mid-range I'm talking about a PC that you could get today for about $600

As a side note I have considered buying a console before. There are quite a few console exclusive games I'm looking forward to see when they're out (Killzone 2 trailer caught may attention indeed)

So with that let me state a few things, that may interest people thay may want to make a good discussion in that we all can leave a bit more clarified in terms of what a reasonable priced PC and a console can do, and reply in this thread with whatever thoughts they may have..

First of. Today you can get a Core 2 Duo E6320 with 1GB of ram and a Geforce 8500 for as low as $670

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/sp3.asp?v=d


First of. Just so you know the RECOMMENDED PC requirements for a game such as Gears of War are expected to be on par with the requirements for Unreal Tournament 3

Gears of War is regarded as being one of the games that push the X360 power. so just as a compare to what are the requirements needed on a PC for that level of detail (and take into count that the PC version will have improved textures, DX10 support and so on)

http://unreal.freakygaming.com/pc/action/unreal_tournament_3/system_requirements.html

CPU: 3-4Ghz
RAM: 1024MB
Graphics: NVIDIA 6800GT/Ultra or 7800GT/GTX SLI

AND just so you know they are referring to SINGLE CORE hardware.

Another good example Oblivion. both on the PS3 and X360

Just so you guys know in the X360 and PS3 Oblivion runs at 720p.
Or 1280x720
http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1041/The-Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion/

Now for instance what can we do in a PC?
Just check the link bellow...
this article is from April 2006. back then a high end hardware was something like
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page3.asp
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
ATI Radeon X1800

One could in a resolution of 1280x1024 run a game with this hardware at a higher resolution with no frame rate problems.
And this is with hardware from 2006

Now with this $600 hardware you can run Oblivion with the latest updates that gets on par if not better than the PS3 version at about 90 fps
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/sp3.asp?v=d

as an example
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=16
The Core 2 Duo E6300 is running the game at 1600x1200 AT 50 FPS
an even higher resolution

This is a one game example.

You can do a search on the web and you'll see that almost every console game ported to the PC comes with better graphics AND today you can get a better experience than on the consoles for a reasonable price.


Then just the above facts mean that a pretty normal PC today can handle xbox 360 games without any problems.

IF Star Force Unleashed is coming out for the Xbox 360 there is NO reason why a mid-range PC couldn't handle it

The fact is. There are big companies that make deals with the devs to hype they're consoles.

PoiuyWired
07-14-2007, 12:50 PM
Well, other than posaable interventions of lowlife like $ony, I have to say that it would be much easier to release the game for a fre consoles first. The testing and such will be easier, since all consoles of the same type would have almost identical specs.

So if anything the game being released on console first would be a reasonable choice, PC version (if any) would be done later, possably with time allowing for some tweaks, and competability problem that may arise for the pc.

We all know that if the pc version is released first instead we would most probably not buy the console version once we get the pc one, but the reverse may not be true. I would still buy the pc version if it is released later(assuming the game is good), if anything... mods.... hmmm

Obviously, we would hope to see the game released in pc, we KNOW it will work, I mean if the game is ok for something called PS2, which is nothing close to nex-gen whatsoever, then tweaking it for PC should be easy. Hack, there might be workable emulators (by the time) that will run the game if it is not released as a pc version.

Point, please release a PC version, cause we know any semi-decent gamer's pc is going better than a PS2.

A_Darkfire
07-15-2007, 09:33 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see a PC version in a year or so after the console release. Their comment on the PC not being up to it is really, really odd. Multiple cores in all the current generation CPUs, single graphic cards that can run Oblivion with all the trimmings @ 1280 x 1024, and both ATi and Nvidia rapidly changing their cards into GPGPUs to add some serious physics processing.

However maybe another year would help the average...

Since I don't own a XBox 360 or a PS3 I doubt very much I'll get this game unless it does come out on the PC and frankly there just isn't enough on either console that interests me or isn't coming out on the PC anyway to make me buy one...

Shadow Talon
07-20-2007, 11:31 AM
It seems to me that this isn't about that the PC cant handle it. I believe it can. This is about money. Example: Halo 2
Yes not the same company but remember what Windows did. They released it for X-box first. Do you know why? Money. As we all know Halo IS and ALWAYS WILL be a PC GAME.
And yet they did what they did because of marketing.
Halo: Combat Evolved was such a good game I wanted a sequel, very badly. Many magazines saed Halo:CE was much better on PC then on consoles. The game was so good that a world mass hysteria erupted when a sequel was announced. On X-box. So a mass of people bought X-box because of Halo 2. I didn't because I knew they will release a PC version in a year or so.
And so I waited. And waited. Until it came playable ONLY ON WINDOWS VISTA!!!!
And so I had to wait for Vista now. And you know what? VISTA SUX! 10X!
And now i have to w8 for a better Vista.
In the meantime I have to fight against the urge to find out what happens in the end. (DON'T YOU DARE MAKE A SPOILER TAG!)
I am assuming the same thing will happen to TFU, that it will be playable on PCs in a year or so, and then they will do something nasty witch I cant say on Internet.
I sure hope this does not happen.

DemonKing
07-23-2007, 01:01 AM
There is no good reason this title can't be released on PC except to make Lucasarts more money through exclusivity deals with M$ and Sony.

It's quite possible a PC version will be released 12 months or so after the consle version.

It'll probably be labelled as a "Special Edition" and feature of bunch of minor stuff not in the console release...

PoiuyWired
07-23-2007, 07:58 AM
And hmmm... Mods :)

Shadow Talon
07-23-2007, 06:17 PM
You got that right cowboy ;)

mattclary
07-26-2007, 12:38 PM
1. Next year when this comes out, PCs will be even more powerful than they are today.

2. Guess what they are coding (and probably testing) this game on? A PC.

3. It will be released for PC, but it will come out 3-6 months after the major release. Worst case, in time for Xmas of '08.

Shadow Talon
07-26-2007, 05:04 PM
I agree on this. This is a very possible scenario due to the PC software companies continual struggle to survive in the heavy storm of consoles.
Optimists:1 Pessimists:0

Ctrl Alt Del
07-27-2007, 10:09 PM
2. Guess what they are coding (and probably testing) this game on? A PC.


Of course they'll be coding it on PC, but testing TFU on it? WTF?

Yes it's not just graphics that have to be addressed, it's porting for a start which is always an expensive business and porting would require a complete refigurement of the controls to fit the format and parts o the game would have to be redesigned (control tutorials etc). making the initial game project more time-consuming and expensive. I think this is the key reason why LA decided not to release for PC, as they weighed out the pros & cons of doing so and the cons came out on top.

This game may be eventually released to PC as well... In time, when they look at the sales and consider that its worth the shot. If Capcom was the one making that game, we wouldn't have to worry about that (he he, RE 4).

Kurgan
07-27-2007, 11:19 PM
Hmmm, no offense LA, but I could buy a new next gen console and get this game, OR I could upgrade my pc and be able to play more good games. Oh well...


If they're making a PS2 version there's no reason why they can't make a PC version, except that they won't be able to charge $50-60 for it for virtually its entire shelf life.

LA has released some decent PC games lately, but it seems all the "wizz bang cool" titles lately have all been next gen console. Still, it remains to be seen if this is any fun to play. It looks cool, but as we all know looks can be decieving.

Ah well, if I see the in-store demo I'll give it a whirl! I've longed for a "Dark Jedi" game for years (since 1998). It's too bad PC users will have to wait...

Char Ell
07-28-2007, 12:51 AM
If they're making a PS2 version there's no reason why they can't make a PC versionI agree with your reasoning however TFU's Project Lead doesn't see it that way. :smirk2:
While The Force Unleashed will be coming to higher-end consoles like the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, there will be no Wii or PC versions for the time being. "At this time, we are not planning a PC release," said Blackman. He said that current PC hardware constraints would prevent the game from reaching a broad audience and added, "The minimum spec for a PC version right now is just too high." Source: TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32228/98/)

Ztalker
07-28-2007, 07:52 AM
Ehm...I hear people screaming about hardware requirements, duel-cores and all.
That's a bit strange, since the game will be released on the Playstation 2 as well.* No other team is hired to do that (as far as I know). That means the engine is quit good in matters of system requirements. If it runs on the Playstation 2, I'm sure it will run on most home computers.


*=Gamespot list: http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?type=11&stype=all&tag=search%3Bbutton&om_act=convert&om_clk=search&qs=Force+Unleashed

I don't mean to...brag or anything, but I think TFU won't require that much of processor power. I mean, Crysis minimum requirements are a 3 gigaherz processor. And I think Crysis looks better then TFU.

To conclude: Since the engine lends itself for a PS2 version, why not port it to the PC? Just make it run on the standard home systems and include some insane bloom and graphic options for those who have a new duel core at home. :)

Kurgan
07-28-2007, 09:18 AM
Heh, I see, it's coming to PSP and DS as well. Yes, those requirements must be FAR too high... (sarcasm). ;)


Perhaps they're too lazy to input the ability to dial down the graphics and such? (if the PS2 version will be significantly dumbed down to the point where it would be crappy on the PC; by a side by side comparison is needed for the other two versions and the PS2)

Or worse, perhaps they fear this is a title PC gamers wouldn't care for... (Episode III game, anyone?)


How amazing could this game be that the PC min. requirements in a year would be "just too high"? It's not like those consoles are going to increase in power in a year...

Alegis
07-28-2007, 08:06 PM
I'll be disappointed if this doesn't hit PC, won't play it otherwise I'm afraid.

Zenthie
07-29-2007, 10:51 PM
Don't worry, it will come for PC. After the console release.

mattclary
07-30-2007, 01:16 PM
Of course they'll be coding it on PC, but testing TFU on it? WTF?


I can't guarantee they will be doing a lot of testing on the PC, but I guarantee you the game runs on a PC TODAY. They are writing this game for every platform under the sun, it is logical that most of that development is being done on the swiss army knife of media creation, the PC.

And before compiling and building for all those platforms, I am sure it runs on the same PC it was coded on.

I'm searching for references now...

Here is some:

Xenon Development Kit
The Xenon development environment follows the same model as for Xbox.
Game development occurs on the PC. The resulting executable image is
loaded by the Xenon development kit and remotely debugged on the PC.
MS® Visual Studio® version 7.1 continues as the development
environment for Xenon.

The Xenon compiler is based on a custom PowerPC back end and the
latest MS® Visual C++® front end. The back end uses technology
developed at MS for Windows NT on PowerPC. The Xenon software group
includes a dedicated team of compiler engineers updating the compiler
to support Xenon-specific CPU extensions. This team is also heavily
focused on optimization work.
The Xenon development kit will include accurate DVD emulation
technology to allow developers to very precisely gauge the effects of
the retail console disc drive.

http://answers.tveasy.co.uk/u.g.v.xbox/LXX2-hardware-o.htm

jessefett
08-04-2007, 03:33 AM
sorry dumb question, but whats the genre? fps, tps, rpg? I'm only interested if its fps or rpg, or has Boba Fett. I dont really care if its graphics had to be lowerd for the pc, its not about graphics its about game play. It could have N64 graphics and I would still play it as long as it had a good story and game play. hmph they really need to start kotor3.

Ztalker
08-04-2007, 06:49 AM
It will be a third person saber action game. It looks similar to the Jedi Knight series. A similar RPG element will be there too, your powers will increase over time. So a mixture of your two favourite genres...:)

Hmmm...Boba Fett. Could be...he's supposed to have a role in the tv series as well, which takes place in the same timeline as the game...

Negative Sun
08-04-2007, 07:55 AM
Unless it's got the exact same controls as JK I fear it wouldn't be suitable for PC in that way (like Episode III as someone mentioned above), I know I wouldn't want to play it for PC if the controls suck...

I've seen it for Devil May Cry 3, it's an amazing game for the PS2, but it sucks on PC unless you've got a gamepad, and what's the point in that?



How amazing could this game be that the PC min. requirements in a year would be "just too high"? It's not like those consoles are going to increase in power in a year...
My thoughts exactly!

Kurgan
08-04-2007, 01:08 PM
Unless it's got the exact same controls as JK I fear it wouldn't be suitable for PC in that way (like Episode III as someone mentioned above), I know I wouldn't want to play it for PC if the controls suck...

I've seen it for Devil May Cry 3, it's an amazing game for the PS2, but it sucks on PC unless you've got a gamepad, and what's the point in that?


Well unless it's optimized for the Wii, there's no control setup it could have that wouldn't carry over to the PC.

The PC has the ability to use a larger variety of controllers than any console on the market to date. A lot of "console ports" of games have been released in the past that sucked with mouse and keyboard and really forced you to use a gamepad, but that's fine.

I remember back in the early days of pc gaming (well, early days for me, early 90's) when games sucked with keyboard, so you always had to buy a gravis gamepad or offbrand imitator or flightstick to make it play decently.

I don't see owning a gamepay to play a pc game as a big handicap. It's not like they're that expensive, and once you have one (a good one) you can play all your games with it. I own two gamepads that I've had since 1998, and I still use them to play various games on my pc. There's also adaptors you can buy that hookup all sorts of console controllers to your pc, from NES to Xbox.

The only way a console port of a game to the PC will suck is if they make no effort to take advantage of the more powerful/expandable PC format, or deliberately dumb the game down (as they apparently did with Spider-Man: The Movie 2 for the PC).

Gargoyle King
08-09-2007, 10:32 PM
I've seen it for Devil May Cry 3, it's an amazing game for the PS2, but it sucks on PC unless you've got a gamepad, and what's the point in that?I seen a copy of that in GAME a few weeks back for the PC, i almost cryed, :lol: It should've been DMC II ported to the PC, that game kinda sucked but numero 3 was a good installment in the series.

LordSerion
08-10-2007, 06:09 AM
I really hope they'll make it on PC as well. Actually, there's a petition for it (I've already signed it). I belive, they will release it, but perhaps 1-2 years later.

Zenthie
08-10-2007, 09:02 AM
They will.

neal8929
08-11-2007, 09:08 PM
If they do make a PC version, I really hope they don't try to make it depend on Physics cards. Most new PCs have dual cores, if they take advantage of that mixed in with a nice graphics card a PC can handle it. And remember, what really takes the most processing power is quantity. From the screenshots I didn't see more than maybe 5 bad guys on screen at a time, if it was like 50 or more, that might be a problem.

jordie8472
08-21-2007, 08:13 PM
I'm gonna wind up getting it for PS2. No next gen for me...

Though I would love a PC version over a PS2 version.

Ztalker
08-22-2007, 03:24 AM
A Playstation 2 version...it still grinds my gears. In the developer diary they say something like:
"In 2004, we started planning to make a new Star Wars game for the next generation of consoles."

So we leave the Next generation of PC's (with Vista that already supports most of the X-Box 360 stuff) and bring it to the even newer console, the PS2! We know the PS2 is famous for it's graphics. :xp:

But seriously, Cold Planet, Gears of War and several other stuff has proven you can port stuff farely easily between the X-Box 360 and the PC. Not to mention Shadowrun, a game that 'connects' both consoles.
Why they take the extra difficulty to make a PS2 version instead of a PC version is strange.

The only logical reason would be money. But aren't there more people with a PC then a PS2? :(

LordSerion
08-22-2007, 03:33 AM
Yes, you are correct, Ztalker.

GeneralPloKoon
08-22-2007, 07:44 PM
75 percent of you guys are probably PC-only gamers, well I think TFU would be kinda wierd on PC. I hope this dosen't create a horde of angry PC star wars fans at Lucasarts.

Char Ell
08-22-2007, 10:44 PM
I hope this dosen't create a horde of angry PC star wars fans at Lucasarts. Heh. You hope it doesn't create an angry horde of PC gamers? I think it has already happened.
:mob:

RellioN
08-23-2007, 05:30 AM
I don't like playing games on a console... I certainly hope that they bring it out on the PC and if they don't, I'll just go play the game at a friend or something.

Miltiades
08-23-2007, 08:54 PM
Heh. You hope it doesn't create an angry horde of PC gamers? I think it has already happened.
:mob:

It think so too, and understandable to say the least. Of all the games LucasArts is developing or publishing, only Thrillville: Off the Rails will be for PC (although Lego: Indiana Jones is still TBA). Not very exciting. And I think The Force Unleashed would perfectly fit on the PC, even more so than on any of the consoles.

It's even more frustrating to see LucasArts coming up with this new engine, these exciting games and all of that, and you, as PC Gamer, are being left behind with an empty hand.

Shadow Talon
08-26-2007, 11:55 AM
I too agree on this.
So....
Can anyone make a C4?
:)

darthjantom
08-26-2007, 03:53 PM
I will only play the game if it will be released for the PC. If not, then that will be a loss for LA.

Vadarios
08-29-2007, 08:50 AM
Coding and design can be done on a PC without it being playable on a PC. They likely have test boxes set up to test on different platforms. Not to mention the systems they use for testing are likely not the same thing as we have for PC's.

Just for poops and giggles, here's a possible reason they wouldn't make the game for PC's first. With the consoles, the hardware is static. One console from one household is the same as the one in the next household. My neighbor and I have a console (for the sake of argument lets say X360) and they are exactly the same. We have PC's as well. My PC has a radeon X1650 Soundblaster Audigy2ZS, Intel Core2Duo. His has a GeForce 8000 Realtek AC2 and AMD64. He's running XP, I'm running Vista(which isn't true, I'm running Ubuntu, which means most PC games are out of the question but meh). If you design a game for the console you only have one set of hardware to consider. One very specific setup. If you design a PC game, you have to take into account various hardware, with varying revision levels, countless combinations, and compatability issues.

Ztalker
08-29-2007, 12:10 PM
All you say is true....

But wouldn't porting to a much, much weaker console (PS2) take as much time?
The DS is another case. The whole game will probably be made by a whole differant team, with all the possibilities of the handheld included. (The DS being capable of Nintendo 64 Graphics).
But why get another team to downscale all technology, textures overall coolness for the PS2?

Doing this for the PC would provide much more benefit.

In short, they're now 'doing' this (I think):
-1 Team designs TFU for the next gen consoles
-1 Team takes the storyline blueprints and works on a DS version (probably with the engine of that Twilek-game). They do this with Mercenaries 2 as well. A whole team is working on a seperate version for the PS2.
- 1 whole team is downgrading the Next Gen version for the PS2

And that's what I don't understand.
If you take a single team to make a PS2 version (since there is no way the PS2 can give the same gameplay and graphical experience as the next-gen versions), why not give that team the mission to create a...let's say..current/next-gen version of the game that can turn on most PC systems. You will reach far more customers with that then with a PS2 game, because face it: The die-hard games will already have bought a new next-gen console (expecially since they went down in price) or have a brand new Vista computer standing at home, because all the standard systems come with that.
What is the...group they are trying to market here?
The 8 yeard old Sly the Racoon gamers who haven't upgraded yet? The six-year olds who got the PS2 console last Christmas from their parents?

PoiuyWired
08-29-2007, 06:17 PM
Actually, the team wotking for PSP is basically the team working for PS2. :)

But I won't call PS2 anything close to NextGen... over my cold dead medium rare body.

Negative Sun
08-29-2007, 06:38 PM
The 8 yeard old Sly the Racoon gamers who haven't upgraded yet? The six-year olds who got the PS2 console last Christmas from their parents?
The hard-working people who are still satisfied with a PS2 and don't want to fork out for a stupid 360 and can't afford a PS3 yet...
I got a PS2 last Xmas for my fiancee because it's by far still the best console out there (except for the Wii maybe), with the best selection of games (DMC, MGS2, Onimusha, Guitar Hero, etc...)

The PS2 graphics are still being pushed to the limit to this day, and it still amazes me what developers manage to squeeze out of this "outdated" machine...

Ztalker
08-30-2007, 07:04 AM
I'm not trying to insult anyone, I don't even own a next-gen console, nor the Playstation2, or a 'uber pwnage' next gen computer. Just a mere Gamecube and a...'medium' computer. :(

It's just a mere observation of my part. Of course the Playstation has huge fanbase (110 million sold consoles worldwide?), but that doesn't justify releasing TFU for it.

My point is that the die hard gamers already bought an X-360 for Halo 3, Gears of War, Project Gotham, hell let's throw in the new GTA. And face it: TFU isn't made for the casual gamers. It's not like you can kill all thos Stormtroopers by buttonbashing or sweeping with the Wii-mote. :xp:

Again, no offense to the PS2; it's a very good console and has been out there for almost ten years. Of course it has had 'next-gen content' like God of War recently. I can understand why a PS2 would be a better buy then a PS3 or a X-Box 360, just because of the massive amount of games and third party support, just like you said. But the fact remains: TFU is 'created' for the PS3 and X-Box 360. Those are the consoles with the third-party support right now and will still have it in the future. EA all the way. :)

I just don't think it's justified to release it on the PS2. You wouldn't hear me complain if it was released for the original X-Box, Gamecube or Wii. With it; it's the same group of people who haven't upgraded, or, like you said and like myself, are satisfied with their current console.

But to me, as a Nintendo gamer and owner of a 'standard' computer, there is no way I can play this game, whilst the owners of an in power similar console (PS2-Gamecube-Computer?) like yourself get all the benefit.

So, again I ask: What goal is there to release the game for the PS2? I sincerely believe that most of the 110 million PS2 owners will have a PC that's stronger then that console, or have bought a new console already.

Char Ell
08-30-2007, 08:38 AM
So, again I ask: What goal is there to release the game for the PS2? I sincerely believe that most of the 110 million PS2 owners will have a PC that's stronger then that console, or have bought a new console already.I haven't bothered researching the actual console total unit sales figures but if there are 110 million PS2's out there then those are 110 million reasons why LucasArts should support the PS2. IIRC the PS2 was the clear winner in the previous generation of consoles with by far the largest installed base.

Of course I really wonder how TFU on PS2 will compare in features to TFU on PS3 and Xbox 360. If DMM and euphoria really needed the processing power available in the new consoles before they could become reality then I don't see how PS2 will be able to support LucasArts' highly touted game technologies. IMO it's likely PS2 owners will get an experience either without these features or with watered down versions of DMM and euphoria.

Shadow Talon
09-03-2007, 12:20 PM
So you are saying owners of a next gen consoles will have trash just to make them buy a PC so they can enjoy completely TFU on it (if they release one for PC)?
That is evil.

Lantzen
09-18-2007, 08:41 AM
So, what do you think. It aint announced for PC, but to you think it will be ? Il think it will be sooner or later, alot of the greater game to console get to PC, some maybe a year later, other many years later. What do you think of Unleashed ?

Jeff
09-18-2007, 12:13 PM
I honestly do not think it will be announced for PC. The reason they gave is because not enough PCs would be able to handle the specs. I think by the time enough PCs will be able to, LucasArts would have been moved on to other games.

stoffe
09-18-2007, 01:08 PM
I honestly do not think it will be announced for PC. The reason they gave is because not enough PCs would be able to handle the specs. I think by the time enough PCs will be able to, LucasArts would have been moved on to other games.

You'd think they could market it to the hardcore FPS crowd at least. The people who buy computers to be able to play Crysis or similar games should have good enough computers to handle Force Unleashed as well, unless it's very poorly optimized?

Apparently they are numerous enough to make it profitable to make those games, and since Force Unleashed is an action game and not an RPG they might be interested in it. :)

In my entirely uninformed opinion it sounds like nothing but a poor excuse. Especially with the Playstation 2 version, which would be equivalent of 2002 PC hardware, or Wii version, which I doubt would be more powerful than your average gaming PC.

Jae Onasi
09-18-2007, 01:27 PM
merged the thread "Force Unleashed to PC" with this thread since both are about the same thing. :)

Lantzen
09-18-2007, 01:55 PM
Il really think the DirectX10 cards could handle the game, well not evry person have one but in a few years most gamers probaly have it, they will need to have it to follow up with the PC market.

And if it's a good game and it sales good to consoles, i really don't think Lucasarts just will move on. If they can profit from it, then they probaly convert it to PC.


Just look at some other games, Halo2 that is pretty aged at this time, but still it sales to the PC. Jade Empire also had pretty good sales to the PC market when it arrived.


And thanks Jae, didn't see this thread ^^

Jeff
09-18-2007, 01:58 PM
I'm guessing that the Xbox360/PS3 version was the one they were talking about not being able to run on most PCs but I do agree with you, it is a lame excuse. Although I don't think they will I'd love to see it come out for PC in the future.

Commander Obi-Wan
09-18-2007, 05:56 PM
Well, assuming that the recent news regarding a Wii version is true, I think there is a chance, a slim one, that The Force Unleashed will be released on PC. I wouldn't bet on it, but because if the recent news, I would let go of hoping for a PC version yet.

slornie
09-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Hmm, im surprised there is no official information confirming or denying a PC version, on the other hand, on several online stores i have seen a PC version listed..

Miltiades
09-21-2007, 01:33 PM
Hmm, im surprised there is no official information confirming or denying a PC version, on the other hand, on several online stores i have seen a PC version listed..

Me too... but that doesn't mean anything, of course. But the fact they don't want to confirm or deny a PC version's curious. They must be still deciding if they're going to make a PC version or not. Maybe they're waiting how successful the game will be on the consoles, before taking their chance on the PC.

PoiuyWired
09-22-2007, 02:31 PM
Maybe they hope that by not announcing the existance of a PC version, the sales of the two regular versions would be up, namely the 360 version, and that $ony paperweight.

Shadow Talon
09-22-2007, 06:18 PM
Meaning that by saying it wont get out for PC, people who got flamed because of the game wont risk it and they will buy a console just to play ''The Next Best Thing'' after Jedi Academy that includes lightsaber fights. But I have hope.

Gears of War was published just for 360 and its now under production for PC with even longer story and improved graphics. So I will say that I will remain optimistic about TFU for PC.

History will see who is right :)

jaybroni
12-18-2007, 04:22 PM
For those wishing for a PC version, there is a current petition with over 12,000 signatures so far.

http://www.petitiononline.com/g5d4iu5f/petition.html

Also for more in-depth discussion, check out the No PC thread at the lucasarts forum. Its at 93 pages with over 1300 posts and growing:

http://forums.lucasarts.com/thread.jspa?threadID=120668&start=0

PoiuyWired
12-18-2007, 04:56 PM
Well, we know that by the time it is released there are probably still more PC capable of handling the game in a reasonable level than PS3 owneders out there.

Miltiades
12-18-2007, 07:38 PM
Petitions don't help in 99% of the cases. If it suits LA, they'll make a PC version. No petition will influence their decision, IMO.

Jeff
12-18-2007, 07:45 PM
Right, but fans still want their voices heard even if it won't help their cause. I don't think actually influencing a decision is the point of most online petitions because when have they ever changed anything.

Miltiades
12-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Meh. I think many people who make or sign these petitions actually think they're going to make a difference. Some real action is needed: I vaguely remember CoD2 players massively abandoning the game because multiplayer was hell or something. I thought that was really cool. :)

Edit: Okay, PC gamers, I hate to show this to you, but check this (http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/The_Force_Unleased_Not_Coming_To_PC_110986.asp). I guess the question is answered then: No TFU for PC. :(

Serpentine Cougar
12-22-2007, 02:49 PM
Edit: Okay, PC gamers, I hate to show this to you, but check this (http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/The_Force_Unleased_Not_Coming_To_PC_110986.asp). I guess the question is answered then: No TFU for PC. :(
That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later, though does it?

It would be nice if they would say why they're not going to release a PC version....

Also, there is one instance (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/bioshock/news.html?page=1&sid=6168396&cpage=1) where a petition actually brought results.

Char Ell
12-22-2007, 07:04 PM
That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later, though does it? I don't recall LucasArts ever going back and releasing a game on a platform for which they originally decided not to release it for. Thus I recommend you don't hold your breath for SW: TFU to be released for PC. :(

It would be nice if they would say why they're not going to release a PC version..The following is reposted from post #55 in this thread.
While The Force Unleashed will be coming to higher-end consoles like the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, there will be no Wii or PC versions for the time being. "At this time, we are not planning a PC release," said Blackman. He said that current PC hardware constraints would prevent the game from reaching a broad audience and added, "The minimum spec for a PC version right now is just too high."Source: TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32228/98/)

IMHO a rather lame excuse from SW:TFU's project lead when one considers the fact that the game is being released on Nintendo Wii, Playstation 2, Nintendo DS and N-Gage. The reasoning would hold more water with me if they were only going to release the game for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. But of course that isn't the case and you didn't ask for a good reason... :smirk2:

RobQel-Droma
12-22-2007, 07:39 PM
Well, I understand the problem. But, like you said, Char Ell, I don't know *why* there would be this problem... Seems to me they could release it for PC if they really wanted to, considering some other PC titles that are quite the strain on mine....

Of course, they could always *cough* release it on a, er, mac.

Miltiades
12-23-2007, 08:19 AM
A mystery to me too why they decided against a PC version.

Also, there is one instance (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/bioshock/news.html?page=1&sid=6168396&cpage=1) where a petition actually brought results.

I think they already wanted a limited edition, the people persuaded them to actually do one.

Monkey Mania
12-23-2007, 04:34 PM
Petitions did not bring back Sam And Max 2 nor Full Throttle 2.

TKA-001
12-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Good point.

Ztalker
12-29-2007, 12:16 PM
Well, the thread's back up, time to respond:

Shadow Talon wrote:
So you are saying owners of a next gen consoles will have trash just to make them buy a PC so they can enjoy completely TFU on it (if they release one for PC)?
That is evil.
Nope. Just saying that, if the game can do it's thing on a 360 and a PS2, why not an a PC?


I haven't bothered researching the actual console total unit sales figures but if there are 110 million PS2's out there then those are 110 million reasons why LucasArts should support the PS2. IIRC the PS2 was the clear winner in the previous generation of consoles with by far the largest installed base.

Yes, okay. But don't you think it's a slap in the face of all PC owners? The people with an 'medium' PC see the PS2 can play the game and feel betrayed. People with an High-end PC who see the game is released for the 360 and PS3 will have the same feeling. And that's my whole point :)

Prime
01-04-2008, 10:53 AM
Petitions did not bring back Sam And Max 2 nor Full Throttle 2.Because they can reach 85+% of their target audience by developing it solely for consoles, without the very alrge headache of trying to support many PC configurations. It doesn't make much business sense to put in so much effort for such a small profit gain...

Char Ell
01-04-2008, 08:29 PM
Yes, okay. But don't you think it's a slap in the face of all PC owners? The people with an 'medium' PC see the PS2 can play the game and feel betrayed. People with an High-end PC who see the game is released for the 360 and PS3 will have the same feeling. And that's my whole point :) :lol:
1) I didn't realize you were responding to me
2) I wrote that 4 months before you posted a response. What took you so long? ;)

Sure, I think PC gamers have gotten the short end of the stick with LucasArts' decision to develop TFU for almost every platform under the sun but PC. I believe I've already expressed in this thread that I'm very disappointed in their decision. What can I do about it though? Not much. I've considered sending a postal letter to LucasArts to express my displeasure but I really don't think it will do anything. This is just a matter of LucasArts going with what they believe are the most profitable options available. With Jim Ward at the helm, LucasArts believes that consoles and handhelds are the way forward and I can't really argue with that decision based on the sales numbers I've seen. So I expect they won't release much in the way of PC games for at least the next couple of years, excepting any new SW MMORPG they may release. But since I'm a PC gamer and don't see much point in buying a console after investing some serious money in my PC then I think the most effective course of action I can take is to continue to buy PC games that interest me from publishers that support the PC platform. If LucasArts isn't among those publishers then unfortunately that is just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. :giveup:

PoiuyWired
01-05-2008, 01:26 PM
Actually I would see them releasing a pc port like they do with those Lego games. Ports that does not really utilize the strengths of the PC but merely a simple "move that xbox game to PC" approach to squeeze more money out of the project with minimal effort. Probably would only happen once the consoles are out for a while though, like half a year or so. Lets just hope that they do a xbox port and not pull an "emulator of ps2" approach, and as we know it they are releasing the game on ps2 despite saying the game being "next gen only" and anyone who thinks ps2 is still "next gen" nowadays should have his balls violently ripped off with a spoon and force fed back with tabasco and a hit of poprock powder.

Remember, many many so-called game reprints are just old console games emulated from older console rather than real ports. Lets hop this does not happen here for TFU.

I mean, it would be much easier and cheaper to do that with minimal extra budget and what not... much cheaper than the money they have wasted on the toaster wannabe known as ps3, where many game publishers start to shy away.

Alegis
01-09-2008, 04:50 PM
Because they can reach 85+% of their target audience by developing it solely for consoles, without the very alrge headache of trying to support many PC configurations. It doesn't make much business sense to put in so much effort for such a small profit gain...
You almost sound like one of those 'PC Gaming is dead!' preachers, pulling those numbers from your behind (yes, even with the consoles combined it is ludicrous) and calling it a waste of money. For example, it is in fact more troublesome to develop for the PS3 architecture (quotes aplenty), with a smaller proven Star Wars fanbase and disappointing software sales (links aplenty, see EA statements for example). Wouldn't make much sense business wise, right?
Not really. And there most definitely is the target audience on the PC unlike other console franchises would be ignored. The 'we can't do it because of the graphical requirements' nonsense has already been handled by others in this thread so I don't have to.


They're being lazy, that's all there is to it. Or merely postponing PC release, hoping to rack in more console sales.

Miltiades
01-09-2008, 07:48 PM
The fact is companies miss out a lot of cash when doing PC games due to the illegal downloads. On the other hand, they'd still make a lot of profit, PC Gaming isn't dead. And you make a good argument: PS3 sales aren't what people (or at least Sony) expected it to be. Why them and not the PC?

Ctrl Alt Del
01-09-2008, 09:54 PM
The fact is companies miss out a lot of cash when doing PC games due to the illegal downloads.
There's still illegal downloads on the PC for console games. Those vaunted ISOs...

PoiuyWired
01-09-2008, 10:04 PM
Not for PS3 games, cause we really don't care much about them.

Ctrl Alt Del
01-09-2008, 10:12 PM
Not for PS3 games, cause we really don't care much about them.
Agreed.

That is until MGS4/FFXIII comes...

TKA-001
01-10-2008, 08:15 AM
Unknown acronyms abound.

PoiuyWired
01-10-2008, 12:05 PM
Agreed.

That is until MGS4/FFXIII comes...

Well, confirmed for MGS4 360 version. I think there is a go on FF13 also.
Well, PS3 does have that FF game that is a poor rip on Soul Calibur style fighting game. And for those who is unfortunate enough to remember, Square created such failure before... with a different name. Though I would hope that this time it would be playable, just so that I might say "Aeris Lives"

Ctrl Alt Del
01-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Unknown acronyms abound.
MGS4: Metal Gear Solid 4.

FFXIII: Final Fantasy XIII.

Well, confirmed for MGS4 360 version. I think there is a go on FF13 also.
Wat? MGS4 is NOT coming to the 360. So is FFXIII and FFXIII:Versus are exclusive for the Sony black-box so far.

Well, PS3 does have that FF game that is a poor rip on Soul Calibur style fighting game. And for those who is unfortunate enough to remember, Square created such failure before... with a different name. Though I would hope that this time it would be playable, just so that I might say "Aeris Lives"
What would that be? I really don't remember...

Zagadka
01-22-2008, 03:15 AM
1) My computer can kick any consoles' ass without thinking twice about it. It isn't a hardware issue - it is a hardware *compatibility* issue. If you've noticed, LA isn't very big on patching products along. Also, there is the decision to go to DX10 (which would really make consoles worthless).

2) There is an incredibly sad hit to the wonderful modding and editing communities.

Going to console-only makes a vanilla one/two-play-through game.

I'm going to be pissed if 360 prices don't reach a justification height by the time TFU ships.

/wonders what the "FU" could also stand for

PoiuyWired
01-22-2008, 08:40 AM
Maybe they should make a Special Edition for PC. Maybe call it "Super The Force Unleashed" aka "S.T.F.U." :)

Who knows, it could happen.

Delta_Fixer
01-26-2008, 04:51 PM
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years. If we look back roughly two to three years I would say that PCs that were powerful enough to run a fully loaded TFE were very expensive.

Nowadays you can buy a quad-core PC for 600 USD. High end dX10 cards are less than 300 USD now and soon we'll have multi-gpu DX10 cards with 1gig of RAM for under 500 USD.

If LA tries to argue that PCs can't handle such next-gen titles like TFE then I think they are dead wrong. PCs today are designed to handle next-gens like TFE.

As a PC-only game I really hope TFE gets ported to PC.

KniteWhoSaysNI
01-27-2008, 04:53 AM
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years. If we look back roughly two to three years I would say that PCs that were powerful enough to run a fully loaded TFE were very expensive.

Nowadays you can buy a quad-core PC for 600 USD. High end dX10 cards are less than 300 USD now and soon we'll have multi-gpu DX10 cards with 1gig of RAM for under 500 USD.

If LA tries to argue that PCs can't handle such next-gen titles like TFE then I think they are dead wrong. PCs today are designed to handle next-gens like TFE.

As a PC-only game I really hope TFE gets ported to PC.

I'm a bit late mouthing off on this but better late than never. Anyway......

If that is a close starting development time frame, croikies there weren't even any next gen consoles around at that time either. I agree that the statement from Lucasarts is lame. How does one explain the DS version. Are they seriously saying that the PC can't even compete with the DS? Even still, crysis alone has proven that an uber system req. game can, will and does sell the pants off of everything else. Jeepers, I've started on the pong game. Then moved up to the TI 99/4a then an 8088 8/16 mhz computer and so on. Since the 286's, there was always some game pushing the envelope on the pc.

I'll tell you what I really suspect is going on. The PC gamer getting snubbed and kick around yet again by a company that made most of its past revenue from PC gamers. This is the thanks we get other than a few pathetic bantha chips they decide to throw our way to keep their name in our eyes. Look what happened to the ever popular Duke Nukem franchise when they did that. Awww, poor Duke no movie deal anymore. This entire thing about the PC has got me riled up again and no I won't go out and buy a console for just one game either. Mind you, I have nothing against the console I just don't use them nor want to use them I would sooner join myspace for I'd get better use out of that than a console. I'm just ticked off at how the PC crowd keeps getting kicked around and treated not as second class citizens but third class ones because of them.

Anyway, If it's going to be a port from a console, I'd rather not see it come out for the PC then and this so called "not doing a pc version because of the money" is a load of garbage too. I went to petitiononline.com and there is now 14856 signatures. That translates to $594,240 if they sold the games to retailers @$40 a pop figuring that the pc version would sell at $49.99. Factoring that those are signed by the people that heard what's going on. I myself just discovered all this ruckus. If it was going to be ported, those are not bad starting figures for a game already made and just needs a tweak here and there to get it onto the PC.

I pretty much own almost every title from lucasarts right down to the Lego Droid Creator product. I even have the lithographic signature boxes of Pod Racer, Phantom Menace and Xwing Alliance unopened of course since I have the ones I bought in the store I played and still play. Well you get the idea. I think this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin with me and lucasarts even if they come out with "PC this" or "PC that" in the future. I, also, frankly got tired of waiting for another Jedi Knight series without the crappy Quake 3 arena engine which I hate.

Frankly, this is also the last straw for me with the entire Star Wars Franchise altogether. Time to mosey on back over to Star Trek. Although, I would like a Klingon Academy II. In fact, I think it's high time Star Trek got a kick butt RPG going.

TKA-001
01-27-2008, 01:21 PM
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? I would guess its been at least two to three years.
I would say much less than that, judging from the fact that they apparently fight to their last breath to avoid actually showing us anything of the game, save for two videos about their physics engine (and the other thing) and a mountain of worthless concept art.

I, also, frankly got tired of waiting for another Jedi Knight series without the crappy Quake 3 arena engine which I hate.
They only did that once.

Ctrl Alt Del
01-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Someone saw the sales of Crysis?

Not exactly a dashing sales success, considering you need a NASA computer to run it on.

Jeff
01-27-2008, 02:01 PM
I think the earliest we heard about this game was Spring 2006 but they could have been doing concepts and even working on the game before that.

Char Ell
01-27-2008, 02:21 PM
When exactly did LA start developing TFE? That depends on how you define "start." LucasArts pitched ideas to George Lucas in 2005 April and I think the Darth Vader's secret apprentice story got approved by GL in 2005 September. But it sounds like there were a lot of major design decisions that didn't get finalized until the end of 2006. Recommend you read TFU Project Lead Haden Blackman's production diary "The Force Unleashed: From Concept to Console" (http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/#/diary/) to get his take on the concept, pre-production, and production phases of the game.


Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI. :thumbsup:
Even still, crysis alone has proven that an uber system req. game can, will and does sell the pants off of everything else. What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007 (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17110)? Crysis didn't even make the list.
I'll tell you what I really suspect is going on. The PC gamer getting snubbed and kick around yet again by a company that made most of its past revenue from PC gamers. This is the thanks we get other than a few pathetic bantha chips they decide to throw our way to keep their name in our eyes. I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.

LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.

Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:

1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13940) being used in multiplayer?

2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.

3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.

KniteWhoSaysNI
01-27-2008, 06:15 PM
Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI. :thumbsup:


Wow. Wait, what? I could have sworn I've posted before in the past. Hmmm.
Thanks though. :)


What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007 (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17110)? Crysis didn't even make the list.

I'm going to quote two people:

Person #1-"We don't know how well it's selling. The figures shown for it that were in the 80-thousands were for North American retail only (meaning, no digital distribution, including the EA Downloader which probably accounts for quite a large chunk of the sales). It does not include sales from other regions, such as Europe, where PC gaming is far more popular than it is in the US.

If anything, it's more than likely that Crysis has sold very, very well indeed."

Person #2- "Ok, PC-gaming is bigger in Europe. Here's a quote I found on the Internet from april 2007:

Footnote: Did you know the largest PC games market worldwide is actually Europe? That's not something we talk about much this side of the pond. It's also not that surprising. The European Union (EU) clocks in at 807 million people--12 percent of world's total. According to Polish-based developer Reality Pump Studios (Two Worlds), without Europe, the company's budget for U.S. and other market PC games would drop to just 30%. And Ubisoft's North American president Laurent Detoc has said the company's computer game sales are roughly one-third in North America versus two-thirds in Europe.

I so wish that US citizens stop thinking that NA is the centre of the world when it comes to... everything."

Also another fact from that link you provided:
"However, digital downloads were not factored in to the NPD data, since the firm only tracks bricks-and-mortar retail sales currently, making it difficult to track exactly how the PC market is trending as a whole with the rise of casual games and even digital downloads for more 'hardcore' titles."

I dunno about you but I'm finding it harder and harder to get PC games in the dwindling retail outlets. We've lost Compusa since it's gone belly up and Gamstop's game section has dwindled to almost nothing and Best Buy is heading the same way. There are no Wallmart's in nyc so I have no idea what they carry in the way of PC games. So yeah so much for bricks-and- mortar sales.







I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.

LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.

Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:

1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13940) being used in multiplayer?

2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.

3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.

Ehhhh, no condescending percieved. Just a good 'ol fashion debate.
But you are right though. I really haven't been paying attention to what the industry and Lucasarts has been up to lately and I do miss a bit on what's going on like this ruckus. Too busy playing games and other things and taking for granted that Lucasarts will come out with PC games.

Well I'm not disputing the fact that Consoles now far outnumber PC's but the PC is still no slouch in the sales arena either.

1) I so hate that argument about the PC Piracy. Does the game industry honestly believe that copies of console games aren't being pirated as well?
"What's $50 to a computer gamer? That'll just about cover the latest game titles for the Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation 2 living room consoles. But it'll also pay for a microchip, a soldering iron, and a lifetime supply of illicit fun." Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.

2) No dispute there. But seriously, speaking for myself, I could care less about eye candy and physics and just want great gameplay. I still go back to Jedi Knight A.K.A. Dark Forces II even though being spoiled by the eye candy and physics of todays games it sure does look ugly compared to them but damn the game play is so much more fun than it's follow ups and other games.

3) People do think that don't they. If this was a perfect world, that would be so true. I won't go into the ugly tales of woe from the thousands + maybe even millions of console gamers (I haven't really counted) and their issues with their little boxes.



I have only one thing say to Jim Ward and Mr. Blackman:

Bring me a Jedi Knight Game
One that plays nice
And not too expensive
Noowwwww.... GO!
Ni!

Ctrl Alt Del
01-27-2008, 08:07 PM
Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.

Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.

KniteWhoSaysNI
01-27-2008, 08:42 PM
Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.

Yeah, I stand corrected about that. I didn't think to look for info about that since I don't really follow anything sony has to offer. Still the cheapest blue-ray burner is $219.99 and TDK has a single 25gig disk for only $14. Only a matter of time. By the time they figure out how to crack the PS3 the blue ray equipment will be lots cheaper.

The other thing is are there that many Ps3's in use now anyway.

PoiuyWired
01-28-2008, 10:21 AM
Well, it is true that the development of Pirated PS3 games is lagging behind, even as the PS3 itself is successfully hacked, for one simple reason: Demand.

PS3 is not doing well on sales, except maybe in japan. This, coupled with the GIGTANTIC AMOUNT OF GAMES OUT FOR PS3, kIND OF PUT OF THE PIRATES FROM DEVELOPING VIABLE PIRATE COMPY.

Ctrl Alt Del
01-28-2008, 07:23 PM
Well, Sony always had a special focus on Europe. Last I heard, they had some optimistic previsions for sales there.

Char Ell
01-28-2008, 11:30 PM
Here is a transcript I made of an audio recording made by Anthony Baratta on TheForce.Net (http://www.theforce.net/podcast/files/Hayden%20Blackman%20-%20PC%20as%20a%20Platform.mp3) from a recent The Force Unleashed press conference held at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in San Francisco, CA.
Q: Was PC ever considered as a platform for this game?

Haden Blackman: Yeah, it actually was. At LucasArts, we are big believers still in the PC platform. We look at every single game we do and see whether it makes sense on the PC platform. There's a couple reasons why we, you know, it didn't for this game. One was just the core design and the emphasis on the, I mean from day one we had a game pattern in our hands and the emphasis on the, you know, that kind of visceral, blood-pressing experience. The other was because of basically they don't spec essentially. So for most of the versions of the game to bring that over to PC without a complete redesign would require a really high-end machine and just the number of units we would have to sell to make it worthwhile didn't match up with the installed base for those high-end machines so, you know, as you can imagine things like Pixelux, or sorry, things like DMM and euphoria are very processor intensive. I did take the liberty of not including all the ums and ahs Mr. Blackman uttered during his response as I considered them immaterial to what he was saying.

I don't know what he was babbling about for reason #1. His rationale pretty much sounded like complete nonsense to me. I can't think of a reason why the PC couldn't support a "visceral" playing experience as well as a console, a handheld, or a blasted mobile phone running N-Gage?!?! :carms:

Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

What is everybody else's take on this?

Jeff
01-28-2008, 11:37 PM
Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

What is everybody else's take on this?I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.

Char Ell
01-28-2008, 11:49 PM
^^^
Yeah, but they sure do seem to have a hard time just saying it. ;)

I was left with the impression that Mr. Blackman was trying to come up with some reasons for not making TFU for PC that didn't sound so shallow as "we don't think we'll make any money developing TFU for PC." He tried to sugar coat it I guess but IMHO failed miserably, which surprises me seeing as how this question has been out there for some time now and shouldn't have come as a surprise to him. I expected he would already have an answer prepared for the question but it sure didn't seem like he did. :D

Ztalker
01-29-2008, 07:27 AM
Originally Posted by Char Ell
Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

What is everybody else's take on this?

Allright. Let me get this straight:
Lucasarts lived on games like Full Throttle and Monkey Island. The PC gamers loved them. Still, the fans would buy this TFU game. But because the 'hyper active shooter punks' use to illegally get the game the fans won't even get the chance (aka: Slap in the face).

It's like the hooligan down-ward spiral of soccer/football! The fans get checked, need to pay lots of cash for a game, because the people who just go there to fight with other 'fans' ruin stuff? From an emotional perspective, TFU not coming for the PC hurts. Alot. :(

Although, from a business point of view, all to ubderstandable.

Ctrl Alt Del
01-29-2008, 11:07 AM
I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.
Sad, but ditto.

daventry
01-29-2008, 03:11 PM
On this Website it looks like the Game will be on PC.

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=286;6;-1;-1&sku=648375

Jeff
01-29-2008, 03:55 PM
I believe that site is where the false reports started, making LucasArts confirm that it is not coming out for PC.

igyman
02-01-2008, 06:25 PM
As far as I know, the game isn't going to be made for PC, which is a real shame since the game seems really interesting and the abilities shown in the trailer very impressive.
Now, as for Blackman's reasoning quoted above, well, I'm studying IT so I know a bit about how the PC works and I can say that what he said about only high-end machines could run it was utter nonsense. That's what's great about PCs, you can adjust the details of any game, whether they are graphics, or sound, which is why you can run a lot of games on a PC. Let's take Splinter Cell: Double Agent as an example of a next-gen game ported to PC (there are two versions of the game, but the next-gen one was the one that was ported to PC, not the current-gen one) and I can say (since I own the game) that the game works great and looks great on a PC (not a high-end one).
Now, his other reason was a typical company reason - they assessed that they wouldn't profit enough from a PC version - and it's a reason I can understand (since I'm also learning some basics about Management in my studies). However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts. I could probably find exact numbers on the net regarding the things I mentioned, but I'm not going to bother myself with that right now. When you think about it, you don't require all those numbers to come to my conclusion, they help, but they're not mandatory.
I've rambled enough, so in conclusion I'll say simply that I hope the LA management realizes their mistake and make a PC version, if not sooner, then when they see the revenue reports on the console market.

Ctrl Alt Del
02-01-2008, 07:49 PM
However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts.
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.

igyman
02-02-2008, 01:42 PM
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales.
I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.
If the game was that demanding his words would make sense, but the truth is we have no idea what system requirements would a PC version have, since one isn't planned to be developed. However, after seeing the trailer the game's graphic doesn't seem that impressive, very good yes, but not like something that would require the latest in PC technology. I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.

Jeff
02-02-2008, 02:17 PM
Well I don't know a lot about Portal's engine but TFU is the first game that these engines (euphoria and DMM) are being used on so they are the latest and greatest. But again I don't know how they stand up to Portal's. But that combined with the graphics might make the PC specs pretty high.

igyman
02-02-2008, 03:41 PM
Ah, yes, DMM and Euphoria. I read what they said about those on TFU's official site and I took a look at the example videos very carefully from a programmers point of view. Basically what they claim Euphoria does is make the characters act differently every single time. Not that true as seen in the example video. There you'll see spawned Stormtroopers being thrown against a fragile wooden beam, the poor Stormtrooper will catch the beam and after a few seconds it will collapse and the Stormtrooper will fall to his death. You'll also see two Stormtroopers thrown against that same beam and experience a similar situation. It looks very cool, but when you think about it here's what's happening in the code itself:
A stormtrooper is thrown against the wooden beam, there are two options:
1) He will not grab onto it and will fall to his death;
2) He will grab onto it, at which point the appropriate scripted animation of the panicking soldier is started along with an animation bending the beam under the soldier's weight and a background timer until the beam breaks.
Now we have the following possibilities:
Another (and another and another...) Stormtrooper is thrown against the beam with the one Stormtrooper still hanging and this Stormtrooper faces the same if/then/else that's described above, he either grabs on, or doesn't.
If he grabs on there will be one of the two available scripted animations, which means that the second Stormtrooper will grab onto the beam directly and display the same animation as the first one, or he will grab onto the first Stormtrooper's hand which is the second scripted animation. In any case the background timer started above will expire and the hanging Stormtroopers will die.
So basically it's a complex net of if/then/elses, or perhaps for or while loops whose conditions are determined by a classic random generator, not some high tech simulation (which would also be comprised of if/thens or for/while loops, but they wouldn't have predetermined outcomes, rather they would calculate them using formulas, or something like that).

Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.
So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.

BurningZero
02-02-2008, 09:54 PM
well...what WOULD be revolutionary would be if that after the trooper grabs onto the beam...he would try to climb it...'


no?

Davinq
02-03-2008, 12:42 AM
It's disappointing that the best compromise LA could come up with for the lack of a PC version for TFU was a novel. As someone above stated, "at least we won't miss the story."

Ztalker
02-03-2008, 06:07 AM
Ctrl_Alt_Del wrote:
Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.
Well. There are two things about Crysis that make it...flop.
First of all, every single Review I have read makes the point of saying the game 'spits PC gamers with the first-gen DX10 cards in the face, who will now have to buy a new card to make the game work properly' (by Power Unlimited, game magazine). Reading this, many gamers might want to....try and download the game to see if it works for their PC. I know there is a demo out there, but that isn't enough for most.
Second, there is an 'semi-active' anti EA thing going on. If you see how many problems the Battlefield franchise has had...I, for example, have never had any battlefield game work properly. And the support is poor, if not absent. Many 'youngsters' who are into downloading I spoke with said 'EA will make money anyways.' :(

But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good! The same is probably true for TFU. It's worth the purchase.

Ctrl Alt Del
02-03-2008, 06:19 PM
I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.

That's an opinion matter. Any game that's highly anticipated is likely to sell well enough. That did happened to Halo 3, or even Kane & Lynch
, that last one, being rated poorly or as the letdown of the year frequently.
I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.
Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.

Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.
So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.

It's true we can see more or less how the engine is going to work on such a small teaser (I found some animations to be deceptively stuck, even on such a small trailler), but the real-time shown scenario and characters were so insignificant, that we can 't really get a good idea on how it'll work, just have inaccurate guesses

But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good!
It also had low specs for it time.

igyman
02-05-2008, 05:25 PM
Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.

Point taken, but I was talking about Portal, not Postal. Since in Portal you need to solve logical puzzles by taking advantage of the laws of physics, they had to make a really realistic physics engine and that engine is without a doubt the most realistic one there is right now (for example: you jump from a certain height into a portal on the floor and you pop out another portal you've created on another floor (now you're flying upwards) and you'll still be under the influence of gravitational acceleration for a few secs, before the force of gravity pulls you back down.) and that engine works perfectly on any standard PC. After seeing the presentations of DMM and Euphoria and not seeing anything revolutionary, I simply don't see any good reason for TFU not to work on the same PC configurations on which Portal works, except for bad engine optimization.
However, I do agree that we can't make full conclusions after seeing only those teaser videos.

Ctrl Alt Del
02-05-2008, 07:06 PM
Rofl, that was a typo. I meant Portal (The one that comes along on the Orange Box), not that crappy Uwe Boll, Postal game.

Yep, and Havok Engine was used there, the same of Halo 3, Bioshock and other games, like the TR games I've mentioned before.

igyman
02-06-2008, 04:24 AM
Actually all of the latest Valve's games use the Source engine, which is based on the Havok 2 engine, but is a lot more advanced.

Pikmin
03-02-2008, 09:34 PM
I forsee the force unleashed appearing on the pc soon after the console release.

urluckyday
03-02-2008, 10:11 PM
I doubt it would be nearly as good unless it went with the "Games For Windows" brand and had full support for the 360 controller...some games just don't look suited for the keyboard.

General LiWar
03-08-2008, 01:32 PM
I doubt it would be nearly as good unless it went with the "Games For Windows" brand and had full support for the 360 controller...some games just don't look suited for the keyboard.

I'd disagree with that, I've got JK2 for xbox and pc and i feel that it's much easier with the keyboard and mouse than with the xbox controller. More buttons is sometimes easier than scrolling through abilities. But, I think the requirements for the computer with this game would be rediculous.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-08-2008, 04:32 PM
I'd disagree with that, I've got JK2 for xbox and pc and i feel that it's much easier with the keyboard and mouse than with the xbox controller. More buttons is sometimes easier than scrolling through abilities. But, I think the requirements for the computer with this game would be rediculous.
We're all entitled to our options. Personally, I think that the keyboard (which wasn't developed to play games) is better suited for RTS games. This with the mouse combo, makes it fitting for a shooter. But as for an action game...

I mean, the controllers were designed for games, after all. Even as I prefer Dual Shock over the nameless 360 controller.

Negative Sun
03-08-2008, 05:07 PM
We're all entitled to our options. Personally, I think that the keyboard (which wasn't developed to play games) is better suited for RTS games.
And most importantly, FPS games ;)

Ctrl Alt Del
03-08-2008, 05:11 PM
And most importantly, FPS games ;)
Yeah, I mentioned shooters too. :p

Though, you see, keyboard is IMO the only way to play RTS. I've played LotR:BfME II for the 360 and although it's functional, it's in no way as good or as natural as with a keyboard.

Negative Sun
03-08-2008, 05:19 PM
I know, but you responded to someone mentioning JK2, which has a huge FPS feel to it and if TFU comes close to that it'll be perfect for the PC, but if not a controller will be the way to go, but as we all know, the Wii will pwn all since it can take the best of both :)

General LiWar
03-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Anyone remember the spider-man game that was for ps1 and pc. I felt pc was easier to control like i felt with JK2. I guess it's really a matter of what we're used too using. It'd be nice to have on pc considering I just got a new one and don't have a next gen console yet. I might have to buy one solely for this game if it doesn't come to pc.

PoiuyWired
03-09-2008, 05:03 AM
Well, definitely keyboard+mouse combo is the best when it comes to RTS and complex MMO due to the various keys you can config and a friendly pointer system. I would say FPS is more keyboard friendly also, but thats a matter of taste really.



Now some modders please develop a hack on those 360 controllers so I can use a mouse for various functions in 360 FPS.

adamqd
03-17-2008, 06:58 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2008/id20080317_371898.htm?chan=innovation_game+room_to p+stories

teodesetkata
03-28-2008, 05:01 PM
I think the game should and needs to be released for PC, too. I mean, look at LucasArts! A shame! It hasn't released any PC Star Wars games for a very, I mean very, long time. The last one I recall is LEGO Star Wars II. I mean, don't tell me LA has grown soft.

chillaxin
03-31-2008, 06:33 AM
most of the discussion seems to stem from a technical perspective.

there are various ways in which LA has stated there won't be a PC release--most of them qualified or implied.

i'm more inclined to believe this is a marketing issue. Star Wars is a bread earner, has been for decades. how many people do you think would pick up a current-gen console with the belief it won't be released on PC? i know i will be.

after sales peak, there'll probably be discreet announcements of a 'probable' PC release, having only just overcome issues with PC development. maybe even just before release, betting on the fact most people won't want to wait.

either way, I think picking up a console is a good deal anyway. PS3 in my hot little hands in a few weeks.

varfare
04-23-2008, 01:32 PM
No, good fps can by only done for pc. The meaning of fps games are your aiming, movement and battle sense. You can't get that all on consoles. Autoaim+one hit zone on hotbox really sux...

About Crysis... This game has ONLY good graphics and thats why it's not selling good. Just take a look on Stalker. This game is not designed for multiplayer, it had just good graphics for that time but it had gameplay, climate etc. It was really good game. Crysis don't have any (ohh, it have cool trees chopping which looks really poor). And piracy... it's really heighten. Yes, the piracy is the problem but it's not the reason to do not make game on pc. Pc players are mostly high-core players or they are more demanding than console players. Face it - console players are mostly casual ones which don't know what real game is. Consoles have nice action games and for me nothing more. If you firtsly say that the game for pc will be incredible, will contain everything which other games didn't have and this game prove to be ****ty (for example Quake Wars or Crysis) the producers say "hey, why our game don't sale good? It becasue piracy!"...

PS The talk about pc being too slow for TFU is kinda nonsense. Take look on CellFactor http://www.cellfactorrevolution.com/ . This game is totally unoptimized for pcs without Ageia Psyhx but it works really good on dual core cpu w/o psyh card. I'm 100% sure that you could easilly run it at pc without this funny psyhx card if it would be designed for it. It only has multiple object which can move. I can gain same effect in HL2 if I would spawn a lot of crates but it runs smoother. Another point is that almost none of new games for pc don't use dual cores. Yes, few have partial support for it but it's still not 100% of dual core potential. For example Quake Wars have command to use both cores. The feature was added in some patch and it gives about 40% fps boost and, if belive producers, it's still not all what dual core can give.

HK-52
04-27-2008, 07:36 PM
If they make it for PC (It won't happen) it should need a lot of PC

TKA-001
04-27-2008, 09:10 PM
Yes. Lots of PC.

LordSerion
06-28-2008, 08:12 AM
Well, I've just seen an article about a new processor, and it's definitely awesome. If those get to the market, they can't rant about "not enough power in PC" , cos in a few years they won't cost that much.

Titanius Anglesmith
06-28-2008, 05:16 PM
Well, I've just seen an article about a new processor, and it's definitely awesome. If those get to the market, they can't rant about "not enough power in PC" , cos in a few years they won't cost that much.
TFU is being released this September, not in a few years. LucasArts can't sit around and wait for more powerful PC parts to be released just to make a PC port.

Not that PCs being "underpowered" is really the reason they're not making a PC version anyway.

LordSerion
06-29-2008, 09:25 AM
The "underpoweredness" was their official reason for not making it for PC. I really don't know why is it such a big deal, to play on lower graphics.

Titanius Anglesmith
06-29-2008, 01:17 PM
I know, and that reason is BS. They need to be honest and just come out and say that they won't make enough of a profit to warrant a PC version, rather than thinking we're all stupid enough to believe whatever they tell us about power requirements and such.

Ctrl Alt Del
06-29-2008, 02:58 PM
I know, and that reason is BS. They need to be honest and just come out and say that they won't make enough of a profit to warrant a PC version, rather than thinking we're all stupid enough to believe whatever they tell us about power requirements and such.

They do? Really, would that change anything, Weasel?

LordSerion
06-29-2008, 04:39 PM
I wouldn't be so angry, for one. I hate when I'm treated like an idiot.

Titanius Anglesmith
06-29-2008, 10:11 PM
They do?
Yes. Trying to sugarcoat the issue to make it sound like they're not making a PC version because they can't rather than because they don't want to doesn't really make PC-only gamers feel any better.

Really, would that change anything, Weasel?It might alter my opinion of LA slightly. Not much more than that.

Justus
07-01-2008, 11:56 AM
It's no big surprise that it isn't being released for the PC though. Gamestop seems to have a lot of their floor space dedicated to console gaming these days, Best Buy seems to be doing the same. I don't like it any more than the next PC gamer, but it's just where the chips are falling at the moment. I'd rather have it on PC, I'd rather have any game on PC. I was a strict PC gamer up until a few years ago, then I finally caved and bought a 360, then later a Wii. If you can't beat them, join them.

I was hoping for a PC release of this title though, since it feels weird playing Lucasarts game on a console, I remember the glory days of playing Loom, Day of the Tentacle, X-Wing etc. on PC's.

markoca
07-29-2008, 10:54 AM
They have to make a PC, it's gonna give them much more money.
Though, making cool games for consoles that aren't available to PC increases the console selling.
Gotta get PS2 to play this.

Da_Man_2423
07-29-2008, 03:35 PM
They have to make a PC, it's gonna give them much more money.

If people buy the game...which is never a guarantee. "Much more" is debatable. If it's only a "little more", then why bother manufacturing all the copies and have them just sit on shelves?

Though, making cool games for consoles that aren't available to PC increases the console selling.

Not necessarily...because not everyone who would be willing to buy this game owns a console. I'm positive few people will be willing to purchase expensive consoles just for this game. Not even the cheap consoles.


Gotta get PS2 to play this.

You need to upgrade beyond that, man. :lol:

Neopopulas
08-13-2008, 02:43 AM
I just can't afford to buy a console for just a few games, like this one, so i probably just won't be able to get it. Developing for the PC is almost the same as the Xbox (why microsoft has so many cross-platform games to the PC/Xbox).

So really, there isnt much excuse for this. Especially when you have one for the PS2, the Wii and the PSP

LordSerion
08-25-2008, 03:47 PM
I agree. Why don't they just admit it openly that they no longer care about the PC users anymore?

Da_Man_2423
08-25-2008, 07:51 PM
I agree. Why don't they just admit it openly that they no longer care about the PC users anymore?

Because that's not true...

You don't just flip a switch and have a PC game people. There are considerable differences between consoles and PCs. They already stated their reason for not making a PC version, and if you don't like it, tough luck. LA isn't going to do anything to make you feel happy.