Early Access and Console Ports

[The Lunatic]

So, recently, we have seen two PC games get announced for the consoles.

These games being Space Engineers and DayZ.

There's a number of concerns that one can have for when an indie developer decides it's going to launch on a console, and those will be looked in.

1. It can mean the developer is no longer "Indie", essentially, in agreeing to release on a console, the developer is making an agreement with a console manufacturer. And while, in most cases there's a hope here that this will no influence the design decisions, it's not always the case.

It's also worthy of note, sometimes console manufactures will pay for the porting process.

2. If the console manufacturer isn't paying for the port, where is the money coming from? Often these indie games are kick-started or exist on steam early access. During this time, they gather money from a PC audience hoping to further the development of a PC game. To take some of this money, and spend it on releasing a version of the game the vast majority of the people funding the game are not interested in seems unfair and deceptive to the original audience.

3. Console limitations. PCs are more powerful than console. There's no real debate to this, and whilst the importance of these differences are subjective, there's no denying that PCs have more RAM, better GPUs and more processing power. This means that developers can put more stuff into their games. It stands to reason that if a complicated feature required the extra power that PC hardware can provide, this feature would be removed completely or made less intensive on a console release. For an indie developer with limited money, the development of a feature which cannot be used on both platforms may simply be too expensive and removed entirely.

Whilst, I personally have no issues with games being released on more platforms, I do take issue with this when the games in question aren't finished. Space Engineers and DayZ are not finished and at this stage, much can change. As such, I am worried bout the notion of developing another version of the game, using money given to the developers in order to build a PC version.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh for the love of christ, buying an early access game doesn't make you a share holder/co-founder/CEO/manager or any part of the developres company that might have relevance, you are the consumer and absolutely nothing more. Yes the devs have an obligation to finish all the features that were advertised at the time of purchase, but what else they do with their time and money is entirely their decision.

I do understand the concerns, and questions should rightfully be raised. But you also need to understand that your involvement ends at the feature list, you got fuck all say in the companies business.
And I know devs have been bullshitting people about "being involved", "getting in at the ground level", "help develop the game",... and I'm sorry if that was ever the reason you bought into anything but that shit is plain empty marketing crap, it's not easy to tell these days but one should take care to discern fact and fiction before putting money down.

 

[Quoth]

If you're in early access and providing feedback on alphas or betas then you can in some way be considered as being involved or helping development. But unless it's directly feeding back on a bug whether your voice / opinion on something in the game makes any difference to the final product is probably highly questionable.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Oh for the love of christ, buying an early access game doesn't make you a share holder/co-founder/CEO/manager or any part of the developres company that might have relevance, you are the consumer and absolutely nothing more. Yes the devs have an obligation to finish all the features that were advertised at the time of purchase, but what else they do with their time and money is entirely their decision.

I do understand the concerns, and questions should rightfully be raised. But you also need to understand that your involvement ends at the feature list, you got fuck all say in the companies business.
And I know devs have been bullshitting people about "being involved", "getting in at the ground level", "help develop the game",... and I'm sorry if that was ever the reason you bought into anything but that shit is plain empty marketing crap, it's not easy to tell these days but one should take care to discern fact and fiction before putting money down.

that being said, re-directing their efforts to console, WHILE THE GAME IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED, can be seen as kind of dishonest, i think, based in principle, they should give priority to finishing the game for the people that have funded their efforts so far, PC gamers

that being said if console manufacturers pay all the porting expenses and an different team is doing the porting, i dont see why the porting shouldnt they place, afterall its not going to affect PC development

 

[DoPo]

1. It can mean the developer is no longer "Indie", essentially, in agreeing to release on a console, the developer is making an agreement with a console manufacturer.

Right off the bat, there us is a definitive "No" here. In fact, this sentence makes me question its existence as it makes so little sense. Indie games ALREADY EXIST on consoles, however, were the premise above true, then by definition there would be NO INDIE TITLES EVER on consoles. But, their existence stands as irrefutable fact that they do, actually, exist. It's a tautology and obvious but the premise of this question is somehow based on this being false.

 

[Andy Shandy]

1. I didn't realise being on a console suddenly made you not indie (as if this title somehow makes a game better or worse, anyway). And has there been any proof that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo have had any influence on design decisions for an Early Access game port?

Not sure how the console manufacturers paying porting costs is a negative, either. Cuts down on costs on the development side.

2. Big whoop. So far I haven't seen anything come out on Early Access etc saying "This will be exclusive to PC until full release" so it's not deceptive or dishonest. And these people will still be getting the game they paid for.

3. It's highly unlikely - barring a couple of genres and/or massive funding successes - that an indie developer will be putting in features so complex that they can't run on consoles. Even then the former means that it would be unlikely to come to console and the latter means they can likely afford to just put in on the PC version, not drop it entirely.