The Division developer went from hardcore PC studio to consoles

[MentalIlness]

Massive Entertainment went from being a 'very, very hardcore PC gamer studio' to 'focusing on this generation of consoles like crazy

We've been through a crazy week or so with Ubisoft, with the company deliberately gimping the PC version of Watch Dogs, claiming that the next-gen console version of Far Cry 4 will be equal to "Ultra High" settings on PC, and The Division being locked at 30FPS. Can it get any worse? Yes, yes it can.

[FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit ! important]Game Spot [/FONT][/FONT]recently interviewed the studio behind The Division, Massive Entertainment, which had some interesting things to say. When asked about "making a console game after spending so many years in the PC space", Ubisoft Massive Managing Director, David Polfeldt said:

"We were a very, very hardcore PC studio before. And we never understood the previous generation of consoles very well from a technological standpoint. But then when we saw the specs for this generation consoles... I remember we had a meeting at Massive and we just looked at each other and said 'Is this what I think it is?!' 'Is this our home turf?' Because on this hardware, we can be excellent; we can be one of the best. And as soon as we had that, we just started focusing on this generation of consoles like crazy".

So in that quote, we see that Massive went from being a "very, very hardcore PC gamer studio" to "focusing on this generation of consoles like crazy" after Massive saw what would be powering the next-gen consoles. In the quote above, Massive talked about next-gen consoles, saying that "because of this hardware, we can be excellent; we can be one of the best". The proof is right there.

Another nugget of information, is that Massive states that the Snowdrop engine that powers The Division is "enormously tailored to the current generation of consoles". Remember, that The Division is not coming to the or PS3, but is exclusive to the Xbox One, PS4 and PC.

 

[BrightCandle]

And then there is the interview with the developer from whatifgaming about how the divisions graphics had to be downgraded to fit on the console.

 

[WiseUp216]

They haven't exactly been setting the PC gaming world on fire with their releases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Massive

They've essentially been a console port developer since 2010. Nothing of note in the PC arena prior that.

 

[dancanman]

They haven't exactly been setting the PC gaming world on fire with their releases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Massive

They've essentially been a console port developer since 2010. Nothing of note in the PC arena prior that.

Well, I mean there was that one game before they got bought by ubisoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_conflict

 

[futurefields]

Game dev isjust too expensive these days. The industry needs a fundamental change.

 

[Bateluer]

They can be one of the best developing for 2 year old low/mid end PC hardware? Not sure I particularly agree with their logic.

But, it looks like we're seeing the same 'PC gaming is dying!' drivel we saw around the launches of the X360 & PS3, and the OG Xbox/PS2 before them. The only thing PC gaming has done is continue to grow.

Another year from now, when even a tablet outstrips the performance of an Xbox One, we'll see developers start talking sense again.

 

[Topweasel]

They created a couple PC RTSs and then did a couple PC ports for AC:R and FC3 over the last nearly 20 years. Why should I be upset that they are crazy over the new consoles. They are bit player with one halfway decent game they were the lead on before. I am more worried that they don't have the experience to match the hype Division gets (and I don't understand the Tom Clancy name use here) rather then missing them as a Pro-PC developer.

 

[Lonyo]

Game dev isjust too expensive these days. The industry needs a fundamental change.

It already had it. Game dev is as expensive as the developers make it.
Look at the number of inexpensive indie games.
Just because developing an "AAA" game is expensive doesn't mean developing a game is expensive. You seem to be forgetting the masses of smaller titles by one or a few people which are developed cheaply for various platforms, and thinking that the "top end" of budgets is reflective of the cost of game development. It's probably one of the cheapest times in history to be a game developer, outside the time value of your own investment into the game development, but you can also choose to make it the most expensive time, especially if you throw millions at marketing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They have made the mistake of thinking that because they understand the hardware architecture so well that they can already maximize the graphics power of a PS3/XBone that means that they will make great console games. Unfortunately that is not true. They understand how to program for a specific graphics card, that does not mean they know how to handle the controls, how to write a good game, how to deal with the fact that most of these will be played on somewhat crappy TVs.

 

[EDUSAN]

They haven't exactly been setting the PC gaming world on fire with their releases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Massive

They've essentially been a console port developer since 2010. Nothing of note in the PC arena prior that.

well..ground control 1 and ground control 2 (or at least ground control 2) are very well known old games that had a lot of great criticism back in the day (never played them, but a friend of mine is super fan of that ip)

 

[WiseUp216]

well..ground control 1 and ground control 2 (or at least ground control 2) are very well known old games that had a lot of great criticism back in the day (never played them, but a friend of mine is super fan of that ip)

Fair enough. I've been playing PC games for 20+ years and I can't remember playing anything that they've made. There were some extended breaks in gaming so its quite possible I missed the boat.

The point I was trying to make is that the OP was totally blowing the news out of proportion. This isn't like finding out the Metro or Witcher devs are turning their back on PC gaming for consoles. That would be news.

This is a quote from a company that pretty much made the switch a couple of years ago. In fact, the OP just seems like bait for console bashing (deserved or not).

 

[hoorah]

I guess I don't really understand how graphics are dumbed down for console games from PC games. Is it not just turning down detail settings like you would in a PC game until you get acceptable frame rates and then locking in those settings? I guess obviously it must be more complex than that otherwise it wouldn't be an issue....

I don't get too upset if developers aim performance to hit around console levels, especially for a multiplayer game, because they're more or less targeting a $5-600 PC price point that drops over time. If you can't make an enjoyable experience at the $600 level I'd think you would be too limiting of your PC market, but I'm not a dev or in marketing so who knows?

To purposely turn off detail in a PC game that it could otherwise handle in effort to not differentiate the experience from consoles though? Thats pretty low.

 

[futurefields]

It already had it. Game dev is as expensive as the developers make it.
Look at the number of inexpensive indie games.
Just because developing an "AAA" game is expensive doesn't mean developing a game is expensive. You seem to be forgetting the masses of smaller titles by one or a few people which are developed cheaply for various platforms, and thinking that the "top end" of budgets is reflective of the cost of game development. It's probably one of the cheapest times in history to be a game developer, outside the time value of your own investment into the game development, but you can also choose to make it the most expensive time, especially if you throw millions at marketing.

They need to figure out how to make the AAA games with incredible graphics and gameplay on a much lower budgets. Nobody wants to play strictly low spec indie games on their powerful gaming pc. You can play those games on tablet smh.

 

[Bateluer]

They need to figure out how to make the AAA games with incredible graphics and gameplay on a much lower budgets. Nobody wants to play strictly low spec indie games on their powerful gaming pc. You can play those games on tablet smh.

Second. I didn't buy a 290X to play Hotline Miami.

 

[smackababy]

They need to figure out how to make the AAA games with incredible graphics and gameplay on a much lower budgets. Nobody wants to play strictly low spec indie games on their powerful gaming pc. You can play those games on tablet smh.

Strange that I find myself agreeing with futurefields. =(

I hate indie games because of the awful production value. My biggest complaint with PoE was how it might have looked decent in 1998, and I thought it was a great game.

 

[Revolution 11]

So sad that Massive still has the IP for World in Conflict. That was a amazing game and I don't trust Ubisoft to do even a acceptable job with the reboot that should have been here by now.

 

[PowerYoga]

creating beautiful graphics costs a lot of money. You would also need a modern engine (licensing fees) that comes with its own slew of problems, and it might not be suited for the type of game you're designing.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Strange that I find myself agreeing with futurefields. =(

I hate indie games because of the awful production value. My biggest complaint with PoE was how it might have looked decent in 1998, and I thought it was a great game.

Yeah I hate most indie games, some of them have enough flair to be pretty good titles though.

They can be one of the best developing for 2 year old low/mid end PC hardware? Not sure I particularly agree with their logic.

But, it looks like we're seeing the same 'PC gaming is dying!' drivel we saw around the launches of the X360 & PS3, and the OG Xbox/PS2 before them. The only thing PC gaming has done is continue to grow.

Another year from now, when even a tablet outstrips the performance of an Xbox One, we'll see developers start talking sense again.

The problem is that Consoles are setting record sales and everyone sees it. Plus for a lot of developers, the appeal of a set hardware base that you know will run the game is attractive. No need to test AMD vs Nvidia etc. Then of course you have the point that developers have a ton of control over their IP with a console.Almost every game gets a crack for PC and goes up on a torrent site. On a console that's a much lower concern. I guess for some developers it's just easier to make console games and with self publishing, it's easy to distribute via PSN/XBL.

 

[exar333]

creating beautiful graphics costs a lot of money. You would also need a modern engine (licensing fees) that comes with its own slew of problems, and it might not be suited for the type of game you're designing.

The first Crysis cost $15M. That's not a lot of $$$$. A lot of the 'bloat' goes to the pub, advertising, and the fact that the studio making the game only generates a VERY small part of the profits.

Contrast that to the movie business where the studio usually bankrolls the movie and grabs 90%+ of direct ticket sale revenue.

It would be great for game tools to improve so it gets cheaper to make good games, but I think the business model is most to blame.

 

[Grooveriding]

After Watch Dogs, the announcement that Far Cry 4 will be teched down to console levels on PC and now this - I am done buying Ubisoft games. It's clear they've gone right in the shitter and they don't deserve a dime from anyone who games on PC.

 

[futurefields]

After Watch Dogs, the announcement that Far Cry 4 will be teched down to console levels on PC and now this - I am done buying Ubisoft games. It's clear they've gone right in the shitter and they don't deserve a dime from anyone who games on PC.

I agree. Sucks because they became one of my favorite of the bigger devs during 360/PS3 era. They are worse than EA now in terms of optimizing for pc.

 

[cmdrdredd]

After Watch Dogs, the announcement that Far Cry 4 will be teched down to console levels on PC and now this - I am done buying Ubisoft games. It's clear they've gone right in the shitter and they don't deserve a dime from anyone who games on PC.

They never said they brought the PC version down. They said that they made the PC version put it on Ultra high and tried it on the consoles and it worked. They never said what resolution worked, whether it had AA applied, what framerate it ran at...nothing like that.

Farcry 3 didn't look that bad, and from what I've seen of Farcry 4 it looks better than that. To me it seems that they weren't aiming for Crysis 3 visuals anyway.

 

[Harabec]

I wish they'd do another Ground Control. I remember playing the first one ages ago alongside the devs in multiplayer.

 

[Bateluer]

After Watch Dogs, the announcement that Far Cry 4 will be teched down to console levels on PC and now this - I am done buying Ubisoft games. It's clear they've gone right in the shitter and they don't deserve a dime from anyone who games on PC.

They'll still sell a millions of preorders of The Division and FarCry 4, sadly, because so few people understand this.

 

[BrightCandle]

This game will sell like hotcakes and then the outrage and disappointment will set it once people play it. Ubisoft have become masters at selling a game, and its usually with a nice bit of dishonesty mixed in.