Sony wanted Baldur's Gate Enhanced for PSN
Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition is inching closer to release at the end of this month on PC, Mac and iPad, but Beamdog President Trent Oster said in an exclusive Shacknews interview that Sony wanted the rework of the classic RPG for the PlayStation Network as well.
Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition is inching closer to release at the end of this month on PC, Mac and iPad, but Beamdog President Trent Oster told Shacknews that Sony wanted the remade classic RPG for the PlayStation Network as well.
"We were approached by Sony to bring the game to PSN, so I counter-proposed what I thought it would cost for us to do it right," Oster said. "For me, to make BG:EE a good experience on a console would require a very heavy redesign for the entire control and input scheme. We're big fans of Baldur's Gate, so we want the game to be great. Without a large scale effort we just could not make a product we could be proud of and Sony decided not to proceed. I believe they wanted to proceed with a quality product, but we just couldn't make the numbers work."
Oster said in April that the game would not appear on the Xbox 360 because of problems translating the game to a controller scheme.
In an extensive interview going up tomorrow, Oster talks about the work left to do before the game comes on November 28, as well as the how the team missed its initial September release date. We also talk about DLC and the future of the BG series.
-
Shacknews
replyJohn Keefer posted a new article, Sony wanted Baldur's Gate Enhanced for PSN.
Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition is inching closer to release at the end of this month on PC, Mac and iPad, but Beamdog President Trent Oster said in an exclusive Shacknews interview that Sony wanted the rework of the classic RPG for the PlayStation Network as well.-
The very sad thing is that the game's UI would work incredibly well on the Wii U but their personal dislike of Nintendo means that's not gonna happen. It's really silly how you can be so bitter over a failed WiiWare project that occurred in an environment that does not even exist anymore. The payout/royalty model for the Wii U eShop has been changed and Nintendo is actively courting indies yet they don't want to put their game on a platform that is ideally suited for it while having little genre-competition since their release coincides with the system's launch.
To me that is just very bad business. And unprofessional.-
[deleted]
-
yep, should've ported it to a platform with a small userbase and unproven internet services after poor previous but recent treatment from the platform owner while reworking the UI yet again specifically for that platform. So unprofessional.
-
Yes, I'm serious. Why do you get in at a system's launch? Because you'll have very little competition. There's no game on Wii U for the first six months that would directly compete with BG:EE (Mass Effect 3 being the only very very very vaguely similar game).
As for unproven internet services, what more do you need to know other than that this unproven internet service supports everything that makes a Call of Duty game work online (which is that game's bread and butter)?
The UI from the iOS version can easily be adapted to the GamePad's touch screen. And unless they have been personally offended by some representative, the argument about the previous experiment is BS. Many developers have recently gone on record and said that Nintendo's way of handling digital distribution is a massive step up from how things were with WiiWare (royalties being in line with what devs get on steam or the app store). They're becoming very indie friendly right now, arguably more so than other platform holders.
I stand by my point. The decision reeks of personal gripes and bitterness without much business sense resulting in a wasted opportunity.-
if ME3 is only very very very vaguely similar then BG:EE likely wouldn't have any competition for the entirety of the Wii U's life cycle so getting in early isn't really much of an advantage.
As for unproven internet services, what more do you need to know other than that this unproven internet service supports everything that makes a Call of Duty game work online (which is that game's bread and butter)?
That it's actually good. That it makes it easy for people to browse and buy digital content and encourages it. That Wii U owners are the type who do that and will be happy to download a 2-3gb game to a machine with minimal internal storage. That there's some significant number of people who without a Wii U port wouldn't just buy it for the far more ubiquitous platforms that the game is already targeting.
I stand by my point. The decision reeks of personal gripes and bitterness without much business sense resulting in a wasted opportunity.
And you're welcome to that position, but it reeks of a Nintendo fanboy whining about why everyone doesn't love their favorite company when the people you're talking about have first hand experience with them and didn't enjoy it. That's how shit works, you develop a reputation and it doesn't turn around in a day.-
Now why can't you get through this discussion without having to call me a fanboy? Is that necessary? I don't think so.
RE: competition
You're assuming there will never be a straight up RPG on Wii U? On what basis?
RE: online
Going by your criteria for good, most other services are questionable candidates as well. While the Wii Shop Channel experience was terrible, the 3DS eShop is a much more relevant point of comparison. It rotates games to the front, grouped together according to a common theme in cycles, it finally allowed for special sales promotions, is far easier to navigate than the Wii Shop and will only be more tightly integrated into the Wii U interface via Miiverse, as shown during E3. Games will be pushed to users main screen in the Miiverse plaza which allows them to directly go into the eShop from there and buy the game. It directly puts the games people are actually playing in front of the user. That covers your initial points. What about Wii U owners raises the question whether they'd download a 2-3GB game? Are Nintendo customers some alien species that doesn't do what other gamers do? Storage is easily expandable and the last argument doesn't even make sense to me.
I'm not denying they had a bad experience with Nintendo previously. The dev payout situation was notoriously bad, that's no secret. I'm specifically referencing the stand they took repeatedly when asked about a Wii U version of the game claiming basically there's no chance in hell they'd ever work with Nintendo again. This simply sounds crazy to me. Partially for the reasons I've already mentioned and also because that tells me that the person who said this must completely resent any notion of change and evolution. "Their system sucked last time on a completely different machine, in a completely different environment and under a completely different philosophy so it must be irredeemable and thus must still suck going forward" <- that's basically what this is.
This is not some fanboy nonsense port-begging. This is about a studio failing to grasp an opportunity to reach a new userbase during a hardware launch, turning them onto an old classic and bringing a game to a platform that is very similar in terms of interface to those that they are already targeting anyways.
-
You're assuming there will never be a straight up RPG on Wii U? On what basis?
ME3 is a straight up RPG in today's world. No I don't think the Wii U is going to have a bunch of Baldur's Gate competitors seeing as the last one on any platform came out like 7 years ago.
RE: online
I don't need you to regurgitate the Nintendo sales pitch about their services.
What about Wii U owners raises the question whether they'd download a 2-3GB game? Are Nintendo customers some alien species that doesn't do what other gamers do? Storage is easily expandable and the last argument doesn't even make sense to me.
Um... yes? It's pretty obvious a huge portion of Wii owners are not the same type of people buying 360s and PS3s. Nintendo knows this, everyone knows this, their marketing reflects this, there's no reason to think they're not hoping to capture the same market again while not failing to court the hardcore this time. I mean, you've got an entire console generation where 100 million units sold while basically completing ignoring the current genre of choice (FPS), online play, and solid downloadable titles (name the best new Wii or 3DS downloadable IPs and compare that to what XBLA and PSN offer). These are not people you bank on buying an external hard drive, downloading hardcore games outside a Gamestop or Walmart, or caring about a remake of a 1990s era PC franchise with no modern pedigree. It's absolutely a large difference in much of the user base. Obviously there will be plenty of Wii U owners where that's not the case. The point is a non trivial number will be that type of person though. Even if 100% of Wii U owners through March were super hardcore and none of the Wii casual crowd that's only 5 million people. In reality it'll be less than that. Now how many of those people won't have a PC, Mac or tablet where they're happy to buy Baldur's Gate? It's a tiny market to make a port for right now.
"Their system sucked last time on a completely different machine, in a completely different environment and under a completely different philosophy so it must be irredeemable and thus must still suck going forward
No, that's obviously not what it is because these guys aren't idiots. It's exactly what I said earlier. Nintendo fucked up in their 3rd party relationships before (it's not simply about dev payouts) and had a poor user facing service for those devs to deliver through. They have yet to prove they can do it right. A bunch of prerelease talk and fixing a few processes does not prove anything. It doesn't make someone do an about face and reverse their stance. It takes real time and real results for that to happen. If 2 years from now there're 30 million Wii Us sold and it has a great eShoo experience that people are latching onto then the devs will change their tune. In the meantime they'll focus on the proven platforms where they know their fans are.
This is about a studio failing to grasp an opportunity to reach a new userbase during a hardware launch, turning them onto an old classic and bringing a game to a platform that is very similar in terms of interface to those that they are already targeting anyways.
This is just an absurd simplification of the situation. You're acting like launch day is the greatest possible release date for any developer. That's not the case at all. Launch day is when you have the fewest potential customers in your product's entire history. Launch day is when you have the most technical problems to work through and the least amount of existing knowledge and help with it. Name the last launch day release that built a franchise. Halo and ...?
I would be hard pressed to think of a market segment with less crossover than Nintendo fans and a hardcore PC RPG from decades past. And that's assuming the Nintendo console had 50 million users not 5.
-
-
-
-
Unproven internet services! Funny.
-
do tell me about Nintendo's extensive online services track record and how much their customers use what has been there in the past
-
lol derelict515 ok.
-
what world are you living in where someone questioning Nintendo's online services is lol worthy? The original Xbox had better online multiplayer services than the Wii and they've consistently failed to make a digital download service for smaller games that's compelling despite having a better library than anyone to rerelease old games without even needing to develop good new IPs for it.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
and you'd buy a Wii U to play it rather than use the PC, Mac, or tablet you already have? Keep in mind the Wii U tablet controller limits your single session play time to like 4ish hours...
-
It doesn't. You can obviously keep playing while it's charging.
-
sure, enjoy playing tethered to a cradle
-
C'mon ... the charging cable plugs into the controller. You can use both depending on what you're doing.
-
I will wait for reviews to see how feasible it really is, I don't really want to be dealing with corded controllers these days even if it was feasible with the pets in my house. It (the battery life) sounds like a real annoyance.
-
As the cable is not tethered to the console but any power outlet, it entirely depends on where you plug it in. And honestly, how long are your gaming sessions? Longer than the 3-5 hours of battery life? Plugging the cable in for the last hour or so shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Obviously, longer battery life would be preferable. It's a far cry from being intolerable, though.-
for a 100-200 hour game I'm likely to have a few long sessions if I ever intend to beat the game
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, I wouldn't buy a Wii U because I have no interest in one and yes I WILL be buying it on the PC. My point was that if somebody was a little bit interested in the system, this game would only help to possibly push them over the edge. I'm not saying that somebody would see this game on the Wii U and do a 180 degree turn and buy the game just for this.
-
-
-
Sure, not on its own. Few games do that, though. It's the big picture that counts and having that game available would've been pretty sweet for everybody. More options are always nice.
-
Exactly. This type of game on the Wii U would give the system some points to the more hardcore type gamer who is less likely to be interested in a soon-to-be-outdated system. The one thing the Wii U really has going for it is that second screen and the fact that it's a touch screen. There are some cool ideas started on the DS which could be expanded upon using larger screens. Also having the second screen allows for interesting interface and HUD possibilities. It's still not enough to get me to buy the system, but I do think there is some very cool potential there.
-
-
-
-
dislike of Nintendo is only a fraction of it. Also realize that most of the console owners don't actually buy games let alone something like baldur's gate. Until that changes, it's not worth porting.
-
-
-
-
That brings up the peripheral problem again. Pretty much nobody is gonna put out a niche game that requires a peripheral not included with every system.
-
-
are you really asking why mouse based UI translates better to touch than a controller? It seems pretty obvious. Touching where you'd normally click is a really simple mapping both for the UI designer and the player. Having to scroll a virtual mouse cursor with sticks is awful (ie this is why console RTS doesn't exist/sucks) so it requires a significant change to the UI or the entire game. It doesn't have anything to do with getting haptic feedback from your button presses.
-
Yup, Vita also sounds like a good fit. (you could even select menus from the BACK!)
The one big problem with console versions would be the inevitable omission of cross-platform multiplayer.-
-
While the res may be close, the DPI is quite different. Those assets on a vita would be physically tiny, and they probably would be painful to control. They need to totally rethink the UI on a screen that small, same reason they're not targeting phone sized devices for now. They've had enough trouble getting the regular UI working for the devices they're targeting.
-
I think the max supported res was 1280x1024 but a checkbox let you run it as high as 1600x1200. Other Infinity Engine games like Torment were less flexible. The devs have said it works decent on something like the Nexus 7 but smaller than that (like phones) and they'd to rethink the UI yet again
-
original BG was only 640 * 480. BG2 added 1024 I think
-
-
-
-
YOU AND BOO AND I
-
-
it's not going to be on Steam due to contractual issues, it has a simple downloader then gets out of the way. Your old copies won't have the new UI and content but sure, this attitude seems prevalent for some stupid reason.
-
What contractual issue? Where did you get that from? It's not going to be on Steam because the developer feels entitled to have people give them money under whatever conditions they decide to impose. They don't want to pay Steam a cut of the profits and are willing to sacrifice more sales in order to avoid doing so. They're greedy. Without Steam pioneering digital sales, this release wouldn't have even been possible for them.
And I'm not trusting this dev to be around longer than Steam to be supplying my game. Nor am I interested in splintering my games collection over a dozen different sites, and so avoid such purchases where possible. And this isn't a must-have, since the game is fully playable regardless, but it would be a gratuitous purchase to have in my main games collection if it were available.
This dev didn't even make the game, they're riding on pre-existing work, selling it through means which were pioneered by someone else, and are snobbish about not making it available through means which customers would happily purchase it by. They've made a really bad impression with me, and I'm sure with many other people. Their logic has been very lacking and their attitude has been extremely unappreciative.-
all I can conclude from this is you know next to nothing about what they've done with this game, who's working on it, why they're doing what they're doing, or pretty much anything else about it other than it's Baldur's Gate in some form. Maybe educate yourself a little before spouting off about this stupidity.
Not that it will matter if your general opinion is that no one should be allowed to release games outside Steam and anyone who doesn't feel like giving Valve a 30% cut of sales for doing nothing but hosting the game is greedy (even more amusing in the context of your misinformed complaining that Beamdog didn't even make the game and therefore deserves your money less than otherwise).-
I suspect that 'all you can conclude' on a range of issues is likely to be equally lacking.
You hopefully can at least understand that Baldur's Gate is a pre-existing game, and that any content additions by BD are unproven, and that this product is wanted because of what Baldur's Gate already is.
You are clearly a child with no understanding of where the industry has come from, and what a platform's hosting fee measures up as. 30% is not a given, it depends on the product, and from what I've heard that would be the highest potential mark.
I don't think it's worth continuing discussion with you, your bias and ignorance blinds your ability to be rational rather than reactively defensive for the studio's weak stance.
And it's hilarious that you think BD deserve credit for BG. BG is BG, and it is great because it was made that way a long time ago. Nobody is interested in this more because of BD rather than BG.-
no keep fighting the good fight man
no Steam? no buy!
say it with me guys-
keep going guys, I just heard the popcorn timer on the microwave.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
if you don't put your game on Steam you are literally oppressing my right to freedom. Developers take note.
-
If you don't buy our game even if it's not offered in a manner in which you want it, then you are entitled. Customers take note.
It seems you weren't paying attention earlier when they, in grossly hypocritical manner, publicly chided potential customers who said they weren't going to buy it unless it is on steam as being entitled.
It is a customers' right to choose where they spend their money, and no one has the right to chide someone for not wanting to spend their money in a certain manner.
The only entitled entity here has been the dev studio, who are riding on someone else's work, selling through means pioneered and made possible by those they are refusing to additionally provide their product through, and suggesting that they deserve people's money under conditions they state.
Make that childish and entitled. This studio has left a bad taste in my mouth.-
I recommend sending a letter to Stardock to make sure they update their gamer bill of rights.
1. Release on Steam or fuck yourself
2. whatever-
-
lol I'm not buying the game because I don't have 100+ hours to devote to the series for a 3rd time, not because it isn't using my DRM system of choice
-
I'm not buying the game because it isn't available in a place where it is of any interest for me to spend money on it. I have no impending need to replay it, but as a collector I would add it to my large collection, if it were available for it.
What you DO have a propensity for is straw-man arguments. -
-
I think you have the crazy.
-
-
Generally good advice, sent to the wrong target. Please read all replies next time before responding. Here's the one you missed, the ignoring of which to re-spout a straw-man argument strongly indicated fanboyism:
If you don't buy our game even if it's not offered in a manner in which you want it, then you are entitled. Customers take note.
It seems you weren't paying attention earlier when they, in grossly hypocritical manner, publicly chided potential customers who said they weren't going to buy it unless it is on steam as being entitled.
It is a customers' right to choose where they spend their money, and no one has the right to chide someone for not wanting to spend their money in a certain manner.
The only entitled entity here has been the dev studio, who are riding on someone else's work, selling through means pioneered and made possible by those they are refusing to additionally provide their product through, and suggesting that they deserve people's money under conditions they state.
Make that childish and entitled. This studio has left a bad taste in my mouth.-
-
Don't like rational arguments, do you? Well, here it is for you again:
It is a customers' right to choose where they spend their money, and no one has the right to chide someone for not wanting to spend their money in a certain manner.
And, contrary to johnhead's ignorance, BD did chide potential consumers when it was said that people only interested in buying on Steam feel "entitled."
Customers typically are entitled to spend their money where they choose. A developer who thinks they deserve somebody's money contrary to that person's wishes has the real false sense of entitlement. -
-
-
wow ... where is the ban button on Shacknews. you have the crazy dude. You do realize that BD is made up for folks who worked on BG1 and 2 right? They have enough DNA of the original team to take the game to the next level.
And I read the twitter feeds as well. Brent did not chide anyone. He said it was not going to be on Steam because the low cost of the title made it hard to give up 30%. It's people like you who then acted like dicks and made him defend that situation.
Steam is a great distribution system, but it is not the only option. Time to take the blinders off man.-
ooo shots fired
-
You mean Steam is a good distribution, but it's not an option here. Take the blinders off when you read.
Also, don't care about the twitter feed. Calling people entitled because they are only interested as customers if they can buy in a manner which serves their needs is entitled, arrogant, and downright childish.-
Tell me sir, how can you get so fucking angry and upset about a computer game?
-
-
-
Your post is foolish and in ignorance of what's been written, but it isn't fanboyism. derelict515 ignoring the fully explanatory couple posts he/she/it was given in order to spout straw-man arguments is fanboyism. Here it is for you again. Let it sink in:
If you don't buy our game even if it's not offered in a manner in which you want it, then you are entitled. Customers take note.
It seems you weren't paying attention earlier when they, in grossly hypocritical manner, publicly chided potential customers who said they weren't going to buy it unless it is on steam as being entitled.
It is a customers' right to choose where they spend their money, and no one has the right to chide someone for not wanting to spend their money in a certain manner.
The only entitled entity here has been the dev studio, who are riding on someone else's work, selling through means pioneered and made possible by those they are refusing to additionally provide their product through, and suggesting that they deserve people's money under conditions they state.
Make that childish and entitled. This studio has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Enjoy.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
