Erm… this post was actually constructive, on topic and helpful. Thanks. (?)
This is pretty much what I was thinking; it’s difficult to tell without Steam-like stats or dedicated servers (cause then you can see easily) what the retention rate on console Brink is like. So all there is to go on are things like metacritic and stuff, and the mass of slagging everywhere. Which might or might not be statistically relevant, sooooo
Unfortunately, even with dedi servers (on console) players are still often left in the dark, since a lot of times they do not have server browsers.
Sorry, I tend to think of ‘dedi servers’ as being the whole system together, servers, browser, etc.
Yes, so do I. It is still one of the biggest things I miss when playing on console compared to playing on PC.
[QUOTE=shirosae;373699]Unbalanced: Massive repeated full holds, light with SMG able to pwn heavies in every instance.
Note: I could say “That is simply your opinion” and dismiss this whole paragraph. See how that wouldn’t address anything, though?
Serious answer:
Sales figures aren’t really that different across PC either. 250,000 copies sold isn’t that bad, really. It was pretty high up on the Steam charts on release too. The issue isn’t sales, it’s player retention. How many people are still playing the game, these months after release? On PC it’s not a pretty picture; pretty much everyone who bought the game has given up on it.
Do you have figures for how many people are playing Brink on consoles right now? If what you’re trying to say is that Brink is a successful console game, then it strikes me that the number of people still playing it on consoles right now would be the litmus test to use. If you don’t, then I don’t know what metric you’re using to determine Brink’s success.[/QUOTE]
Note: No need to be too snarky. The quote you included includes almost exclusively statements of fact, not opinion.
I do not have info on 360/PS3 playtime. I agree that would be a better test. The fact that people are still purchasing the game is the best proxy I can offer instead of playtime.
Sales is, at some level, a metric of success. Certainly from the perspective of a small development company like SD, sales are important. Live today, and then figure out tomorrow how to live even longer. It appears that SD has sold enough copies of Brink to be able to live long enough to release another game. Hooray!
However, do you think that a game made specifically to please ESL 15k finalists will sell enough to be profitable??
Thanks, I am aware of that. I paged through the entire discussion yesterday, though I mostly just read Rhahdo’s comments. 
[QUOTE=shirosae;373709]Erm… this post was actually constructive, on topic and helpful. Thanks. (?)
This is pretty much what I was thinking; it’s difficult to tell without Steam-like stats or dedicated servers (cause then you can see easily) what the retention rate on console Brink is like. So all there is to go on are things like metacritic and stuff, and the mass of slagging everywhere. Which might or might not be statistically relevant, sooooo[/QUOTE]A server browser would work for Brink to show how many matches there are ping and if there are open slots and how many even with bots. BUT. Microsoft is TOTALLY AGAINST a browser. They want matchmaking! But without a lobby, matchmaking is a crapshoot. Obviously. In terms of player retention. 
That is just your opinion. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
And I’m really glad that SD have made enough money to stay in business. My concern is that they’ve damaged their ability to keep doing that, by producing a game that so few people want to play. They can only pull this so many times before their reputation is such that no amount of marketing will sell their games to either console or PC players.
The problem here is your use of the word ‘specifically’. It doesn’t need to be made ‘specifically’ for them, because it’s not like making a game with a high-skill cap is anathema to console players (See: Street Fighter). My argument through the past 40 pages has been that multiplatform development requires building in some adjustability from the very base of your game. Have your game be a platform with tweakables (wasn’t this what netvars were for?) so you can suit the super-casual console crowd, the casual pub-stars on PC, the propub players, and the competition types.
You spend extra effort early on by understanding what makes a game high-skill (which is what this entire thread has been about), by understanding why popular games on console are popular (other than having ‘Call of Duty’ written on the box), and you get the early sales and the accessibility, as well as the longevity that comes with a dedicated community and its near-fanatical loyalty, instead of going along thinking that you need to choose one over the other and losing both.
microsoft was never in the business for customer satisfaction or consumer empowerment.
Wait?? Who are you talking to here?? Me?? What did I say that remotely resembles this response??
Player retention doesnt really have anything to do with how much money they made. That ($) ship sailed when people plunked down their cash for the game. I totally get your point that if people dont stick with the game, and/or were disappointed with what they perceived of as somewhere between a mediocre and crap effort, they are less likely to plunk down the $60 the next time around…
It seems probable that PC guys pay closer attention to who is developer, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that a larger percentage of PC guys pay attention to who is developer (compared to console), but if SD comes out with Brink 2 and it’s hyped and has a lot of buzz, a good number of consolers are gonna lemming off the cliff and buy it in droves, regardless of their experience with the developer in the past…the VG industry is lucky in that it’s demographic trends r/feckless with their purchasing patterns and their disposable income.
Now i’m not trying to sound cynical or bag on consoles (that’s where I play, and i prefer not to **** where i eat), but if SD grabbed onto the console train (either at Beth’s suggestion or insistence) so that they could also develop something that they knew would be less successful commercially (say a pc only title that updates or improves _____ (fill in your favorite SD associated title), then isn’t brink worth it? They stated that ETQW didnt make them money (or did they say it tapped them out), so perhaps a multiplatform game is what allows them to invest in developing a larger PC centric title…which of course is all speculation and they cant comment on…but it’s a possibility.
Even if Brink wasnt a universally hailed success (commercially or critically), it does have pockets of support, and they (i’m including myself here) have their valid reasons for liking the game. They can even crank out a Brink 2 and despite the initial “diversity of opinions” about brink, if they improved on the initial offering, there’s no reason the sequel couldnt be a much bigger critical/commercial success…(inertia of initial game + improvements of new game?)
anyway…i guess i’m arguing for a long view, now that it seems like things have mostly stabilized re: brink…it seems we have what we have…maybe they’ll release an SDK, maybe another round of DLC, but both seem somewhat unlikely given comments here (although both would be very welcome!!!)
anyway…
[QUOTE=shirosae;373723]That is just your opinion. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
[/QUOTE]
Well played.
It would seem that the reputation is more damaged for PC than for console players, particularly since SD have a longer history with PC games and players. I would guess that for most console players this is their first exposure to a SD game so they are, indeed, new fans (assuming they become “fans”, obviously), and will be likely to buy SD’s next game.
[QUOTE=shirosae;373723]
You spend extra effort early on by understanding what makes a game high-skill (which is what this entire thread has been about), by understanding why popular games on console are popular (other than having ‘Call of Duty’ written on the box), and you get the early sales and the accessibility, as well as the longevity that comes with a dedicated community and its near-fanatical loyalty, instead of going along thinking that you need to choose one over the other and losing both.[/QUOTE]
But that extra effort takes time, which costs money. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines of Rahdo’s comments that SD ran out of both while developing Brink, and thankfully Brink sold enough to buy the company more time. So long as that continues to occur with future releases, console sales can help keep them afloat long enough to win back the loyalty of PC players.
Forgive me, but I have a Ph.D. in Accounting and teach cost/managerial accounting at the university level – so I have sympathy for the business problems that face a small game developer like SD. As Rahdo has stated several times in this thread, a lot of development companies go out of business every year. I admire SD’s courage to do what they have to remain alive to fight again another day. It is a very risky industry, because all development costs must be incurred before any revenue is earned from game sales, with risks even higher because (per Rahdo’s comments) it will be the better part of another year before SD sees the financial benefit of Brink sales. No wonder development companies are resorting to DLC sales to smooth out their revenue stream.
[QUOTE=St NickelStew;373693]
Well, it is a good thing for people who genuinely want SD to succeed as a company that they chose to also sell Brink on consoles … it still seems to be doing fairly well there. Hopefully their next game will do even better.[/QUOTE]
I was initially referring to this comment, but yeah it seems I read it wrong in a fleeting run out the work door, apologies.
The reason I want SD to succeed, apart from being genuinely nice guys, is so I can play more of their games. If they start catering to the mass market and throwing what attracted me and others to them in terms of gameplay out the window, then the only reason I’ll want them to succeed is cos they’re nice guys… cos really, I’m not going to buy games I don’t like. Selling on console isn’t the only factor… it should be selling good games on console, which needs to be done if they want to continue to make more games. A single game that sold well from hype and bombed might produce one large paycheque, but it’ll severely hamper any future ones which isn’t a good idea.
[QUOTE=St NickelStew;373734]Text.[/QUOTE] Yeah, somewhere in there the Publisher has to get paid back what they gave ya plus percentage of profit first is what I’d assume. Then after a wagon train of other people get paid, then the coffers get filled with whatever is left of the profits minus operating costs etc.? Yikes, that is rough.
[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;373737]I was initially referring to this comment, but yeah it seems I read it wrong in a fleeting run out the work door, apologies.
The reason I want SD to succeed, apart from being genuinely nice guys, is so I can play more of their games. If they start catering to the mass market and throwing what attracted me and others to them in terms of gameplay out the window, then the only reason I’ll want them to succeed is cos they’re nice guys… cos really, I’m not going to buy games I don’t like. Selling on console isn’t the only factor… it should be selling good games on console, which needs to be done if they want to continue to make more games. A single game that sold well from hype and bombed might produce one large paycheque, but it’ll severely hamper any future ones which isn’t a good idea.[/QUOTE]
No problem. I was really talking more about people like yourself with that sentence than I was about people like myself.
I won’t argue about whether or not Brink has “bombed” on PC, but on console to use such a word would be an exaggeration, perhaps even a gross exaggeration.
I think that is a large part of why I hang out on these forums … the SD devs do seem like nice guys, and, moreover, they are relatively frequent contributors on this forum. That is a pretty rare combination.
Sorry to back track a bit but the whole Brink was 3rd best seller in the last week or so doesn’t really say much when you looks at the rest of the games in the top 10.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/316352/xbox-chart-battlefield-bad-company-2-storms-to-no1/
#1 was a game released last year.
#2 was some driving game I’ve never heard of.
#4 was last year’s iteration of FIFA.
#5 was a kids game.
I doubt those games sold 100,000s suggesting Brink must have also.
I have to say though, after having some more hours on the console, it’s a fun game, the philosophy seems a bit schizophrenic though. The consoles are pretty hardcore with such a lower auto-aim, and then the complete reverse applies to the PC where the low spread levels the field for everyone.
But still, I like the xbox360 version. So like Verticae said, don’t take it as criticism across the board, it’s just that the pc version has been completely neglected.
[QUOTE=.Chris.;373762]Sorry to back track a bit but the whole Brink was 3rd best seller in the last week or so doesn’t really say much when you looks at the rest of the games in the top 10.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/316352/xbox-chart-battlefield-bad-company-2-storms-to-no1/
#1 was a game released last year.
#2 was some driving game I’ve never heard of.
#4 was last year’s iteration of FIFA.
#5 was a kids game.
I doubt those games sold 100,000s suggesting Brink must have also.[/QUOTE]
(Thanks for adding the link to this discussion.) Point well taken. But, and I would guess SD would agree, sales is sales. Not awesome or great numbers, as you point out, but still respectable considering the issues at launch that Brink experienced.
DIRT3 is largely a Rally driving game and therefore is fairly popular in the UK, where the sport itself is also more popular than, say, the US.
[QUOTE=shirosae;373675]My expectation was that Brink was going to be a disaster, because I’ve been following the game through development. That’s exactly what I got. It’s a game that 99+% of people who bought it on PC no longer play, which is about as disastrous as disastrous gets without SD towers being hit by a meteor impact.
I didn’t have this expectation that Brink would be some other game that you seem to think I had. I hoped I would find it fun, in spite of my expectations. I was wrong.[/QUOTE]
Coming from a PC perspective I don’t think Brink is the disaster that you state - it’s relatively fun and out of all the previous titles SD have done, is, in some respects, far closer to where my heart lies (RTCW).
Personally I didn’t hold out any hope for Brink (if I could find some forum posts I’d link back about 2yrs), mainly because I despised the way SD took Nerve’s original game model and added stuff to it that made it more unnecessarily complicated and pubby… xp, prone, cvops, multi-multi-multi stage campaign modes, vehicles - not to mention the truly horrific gun sounds in W:ET 
I honestly can’t think of one thing that was added/changed for the better - apart from W:ET being free…
Sooo the point, I think, is that my expectations were low so Brink has somewhat overshot my perception keeping me playing for around 50hrs, not certain I’ll play another 50 but either way certainly worth my £10 - can only hope they take on board some of the constructive critiscism for whatever they do next.
As a complete aside, i’m not certain how well trickjumping works in idtech4 - the trick jumping videos from etqw always struck me as slightly sad when compared to the rtcw and even w:et movements.
[QUOTE=montheponies;373774] out of all the previous titles SD have done, is, in some respects, far closer to where my heart lies (RTCW).
[/QUOTE]
I just read this sentence and went WTF?!
Their previous games are: W:ET and ET:QW
How can you say BRINK lies closer to RTCW than W:ET? In what respect? having only 4 classes?
Please eleborate 
[QUOTE=Crytiqal;373786]I just read this sentence and went WTF?!
Their previous games are: W:ET and ET:QW
How can you say BRINK lies closer to RTCW than W:ET? In what respect? having only 4 classes?
Please eleborate [/QUOTE]
it’s a subjective feeling, but I’ll throw some things off the top of my head. Brink principally suits smg gunplay
with a general reduction in spam weapons. they’ve limited mines and made turrets that are little more than an annoyance. There’s no vehicles, gargantuan maps and campaigns that take an hour to play through.
just generally feels more stripped back to what, in my opinion, a FPS should be about, ie aim, movement and tactics. admittedly it fails in it’s execution in a lot of ways, but at it’s core it resembles best what i liked about rtcw.
w:et just always feels like a poor mod of rtcw. introducing a crap class (cvops), campaign xp, prone, mines, riflenades etc, etqw just layered more crap on top of that with vehicles and turrets. if i was being really cruel I’d repeat that SD have been hanging onto a game mode and model that they never created or properly understood - but that’s really being very harsh 