Would Stalker 2 have sold more on consoles?

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) 1 month, 26 days ago

Would Stalker 2 have sold more on consoles? (34 votes)

Yes 100% no qeastion about it. It's not even a qeastion when you think about it. Of course it would. 29%
No 71%

Hello. Stalker 2 as we know, has been canned. However my friends, as we know, it was in development was consoles in mind as well as the pc. Wholly ignoring the complete gameplay change that would need to take place resulting in most likely an inferior bastardized game, sales wise, how would it fair?

Looking at history, Fear 2, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Call Of Duty, Bioshock's, Crysis 2/3 and so on... it seems even if a franchise was one pc exclusive with a pc following, once it hits consoles, the sales demolish pc and they consequently become "console games".

This can be many things, accessibility, marketing, pc gamers just stealing games and no one giving a fuck about them anymore. But I wonder, with a title like stalker 2, how would that have went? Hummmz.

#1 Posted by MonsieurX (26946 posts) -

Not a chance.

Too much thinking implied in a FPS to be a huge success on consoles

#2 Edited by MrYaotubo (2337 posts) -

Very unlikely,and just to be clear,the Stalker games sold over 5 Million copies(as of 2011).For instance, the Metro games as multiplatform releases haven´t sold anyhere near as much and they´re a lot more console friendly than Stalker.

Not to mention that the rest of your statements are either untrue or complete cherrypicking.

#3 Edited by IgGy621985 (4217 posts) -

Metro can answer you on that question. It was made by ex-Stalker devs, both Metro titles were developed for PC and console, and yet it didn't sell in huge amount of units.

#4 Edited by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

#5 Edited by millerlight89 (18330 posts) -

Damn, I miss STALKER.

#6 Posted by dommeus (8967 posts) -

Honestly, it could have done with a bit of 'dumbing down'.

#7 Posted by killatwill15 (845 posts) -

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

it seems complex games sell terribly on consoles,

like unreal championship 2 or others that don't immediately spring to mind

#8 Posted by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

it seems complex games sell terribly on consoles,

like unreal championship 2 or others that don't immediately spring to mind

I assume you are being sarcastic, though it's hard to tell. Enlighten me.

#9 Posted by TheFadeForever (1379 posts) -

stupid thread

#10 Posted by killatwill15 (845 posts) -

@killatwill15 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

it seems complex games sell terribly on consoles,

like unreal championship 2 or others that don't immediately spring to mind

I assume you are being sarcastic, though it's hard to tell. Enlighten me.

well this thread is operating under the question of stalker 2 selling well on consoles,

and I would say not really, it would find an audience,

but complex games are too daunting and often they can be hard for consolites to grasp.

and about unreal championship 2 was mad ill,

you could deflect sniper fire,

bounce of walls and had a melee combat system and didn't sell to good,

despite being ahead of other genres in certain things.

I think it was "too much" and deterred some because of the amount of skill and learning curve being slightly steep.

#11 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

Yes it would have sold more because it would have reached a bigger audience. Stalker for the PC was a good game but its marketing was next to nothing and the only people who bought it that first year of its release where PC hardcores. On consoles it wouldn't have sold like gangbusters but it would have gotten more recognition and sales.

Metro can answer you on that question. It was made by ex-Stalker devs, both Metro titles were developed for PC and console, and yet it didn't sell in huge amount of units.

Just because a few people who worked as part of a much larger team at a previous company doesn't mean shit really.

And metro didn't sell well because it was poorly marketed to consumers and because it was just a mediocre game. A unique setting doesn't mean a thing when your game is overall "meh".

Your argument has no validity and is shot full of holes with this one statement, ex diablo 2 developers made hellgate London and it crashed and burned as one of the worst games of its decade. So just because someone somewhere once worked on a good game doesn't mean that anything they make later will be good or bad.

#12 Edited by wis3boi (30270 posts) -

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

#13 Posted by NFJSupreme (4539 posts) -

They would have had to spend more money to market it and wouldn't have recouped.

#14 Posted by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

#15 Edited by Wasdie (48794 posts) -

I don't know. Without a massive advertising campaign it wouldn't stand much of a chance against the other major FPSs on the consoles. I think there would be a market on the consoles, but it would be considerably smaller than most shooters. I think it would probably sell roughly the same on the consoles as it would on the PC. I doubt it would be profitable.

It's already a pretty niche title on the PC. It would be a major uphill battle on the console.

#16 Edited by Wasdie (48794 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

Not much would need to be done. They would just need a more streamlined interface to interact with picking up quests, interacting with the map, and managing the inventory. Changing the gameplay any would take it too far away from the Stalker formula and wouldn't have been any good. It was done by a small studio without a publisher pushing for changes so I doubt the core formula would have changed much.

#17 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@wis3boi said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

Not much would need to be done. They would just need a more streamlined interface to interact with picking up quests, interacting with the map, and managing the inventory. Changing the gameplay any would take it too far away from the Stalker formula and wouldn't have been any good. It was done by a small studio without a publisher pushing for changes so I doubt the core formula would have changed much.

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

As history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

#18 Posted by IgGy621985 (4217 posts) -

@Gargus said:

And metro didn't sell well because it was poorly marketed to consumers and because it was just a mediocre game. A unique setting doesn't mean a thing when your game is overall "meh".

Your argument has no validity and is shot full of holes with this one statement, ex diablo 2 developers made hellgate London and it crashed and burned as one of the worst games of its decade. So just because someone somewhere once worked on a good game doesn't mean that anything they make later will be good or bad.

Poorly marketed - I can agree with that. Mediocre game? And yet you say my argument has no validity... Let me guess. Call of Duty is a masterpiece?

Hellgate London had one major problem in comparison to Metro - it was a shit game, while Metro wasn't.

Sure, if Metro had a better marketing campaign, it might have sold better, but not necessarily. It's not a game that would appeal western markets.

#19 Posted by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

s history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

Wasdie was talking about Stalker.

#20 Edited by MonsieurX (26946 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@wis3boi said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

Not much would need to be done. They would just need a more streamlined interface to interact with picking up quests, interacting with the map, and managing the inventory. Changing the gameplay any would take it too far away from the Stalker formula and wouldn't have been any good. It was done by a small studio without a publisher pushing for changes so I doubt the core formula would have changed much.

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

As history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

Thing is,Black Isles(original developers) disbanded a while ago,so it would have been quite hard to follow in the same way.

And Van Burren(original Fallout 3) was supposed to be isometric as well.

#21 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

s history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

Wasdie was talking about Stalker.

My young friend, no one was. Thank you for attempting help though, excellent work.

#22 Posted by wis3boi (30270 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

s history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

Wasdie was talking about Stalker.

My young friend, no one was.

no one is your friend here, nor are we young

#23 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

My friends, it's perturbing why Metro is brought up. This video game title amounts to "Call Of Duty underground". Half the time you are watching the game than playing it. That's probably what would happen with Stalker. Of course, not "to get it to work" as some people seem to be think but "to make money" as is the publisher mentality.

#24 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:
@uninspiredcup said:

@Wasdie said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@wis3boi said:

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

this. It's like trying to sell Fallout 1/2 today, wouldn't fly in the console market

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

Not much would need to be done. They would just need a more streamlined interface to interact with picking up quests, interacting with the map, and managing the inventory. Changing the gameplay any would take it too far away from the Stalker formula and wouldn't have been any good. It was done by a small studio without a publisher pushing for changes so I doubt the core formula would have changed much.

Matey, Fallout went from this

To this

As history has shown, publishers and developers while quite happily corrupt games for profit.

Thing is,Black Isles(original developers) disbanded a while ago,so it would have been quite hard to follow in the same way.

And Van Burren(original Fallout 3) was supposed to be isometric as well.

My friend, it's fairly easy to see going from Oblivion to Fallout and then to Skyrim that the trend of Bethesda is essentially attempting to appeal to the Call Of Duty player case. Typical leveling up (in what was already a simple game) replaced with a perk system and beefed up faster gameplay.

I do agree though. although to completely disband the entire thing to appease the console user base with the monstrosity that was fallout 3 was to take a huge dump on the name.

I'm sort of happy Stalker died with dignity. That old that old adage of "better to die on your feet than live on your knee's" really applies here.

#25 Posted by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

My young friend, no one was. Thank you for attempting help though, excellent work.

@Wasdie said:

Changing the gameplay any would take it too far away from the Stalker formula and wouldn't have been any good.

Sorry, what?

#26 Edited by millerlight89 (18330 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

I played the original Stalker and I doubt it. It was a pretty intricate FPS.

it seems complex games sell terribly on consoles,

like unreal championship 2 or others that don't immediately spring to mind

Stalker is hardly complex

#27 Posted by highking_kallor (228 posts) -

@Gargus said:

Yes it would have sold more because it would have reached a bigger audience. Stalker for the PC was a good game but its marketing was next to nothing and the only people who bought it that first year of its release where PC hardcores. On consoles it wouldn't have sold like gangbusters but it would have gotten more recognition and sales.

@IgGy621985 said:

Metro can answer you on that question. It was made by ex-Stalker devs, both Metro titles were developed for PC and console, and yet it didn't sell in huge amount of units.

Just because a few people who worked as part of a much larger team at a previous company doesn't mean shit really.

And metro didn't sell well because it was poorly marketed to consumers and because it was just a mediocre game. A unique setting doesn't mean a thing when your game is overall "meh".

Your argument has no validity and is shot full of holes with this one statement, ex diablo 2 developers made hellgate London and it crashed and burned as one of the worst games of its decade. So just because someone somewhere once worked on a good game doesn't mean that anything they make later will be good or bad.

Tell this to the Titanfall drones

#28 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -
@millerlight89 said:

Stalker is hardly complex

This is true. However stalker is very skill based.

@lundy86_4 said:

Sorry, what?

?

My friend, if you have nothing to contribute...

#29 Posted by millerlight89 (18330 posts) -

@millerlight89 said:

Stalker is hardly complex

This is true. However stalker is very skill based.

Early on, yes. When you get guns that do not suck, it becomes quite easy.

#30 Edited by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

?

My friend, if you have nothing to contribute...

Wasdie was referencing Stalker and you stated that nobody was referencing Stalker. Perhaps you should take the issue up with Wasdie, if his wording was incorrect.

#31 Posted by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@millerlight89 said:

Stalker is hardly complex

This is true. However stalker is very skill based.

Early on, yes. When you get guns that do not suck, it becomes quite easy.

False sadly . It seems clear this is a console user attempting to understand pc gaming.

#32 Posted by glez13 (8350 posts) -

Why not? It's basically like the new Far Cry games. FPS with some adventuring.

#33 Posted by Shielder7 (4329 posts) -

Usually everything sells better on consoles, why do you think PC losses so many exclusives and you get PC gamers begging for ports and only get them once the initial sales have hit consoles first.

PC gamers did it to themselves tho it's just too easy to pirate on PC.

#34 Posted by millerlight89 (18330 posts) -

@millerlight89 said:

@uninspiredcup said:
@millerlight89 said:

Stalker is hardly complex

This is true. However stalker is very skill based.

Early on, yes. When you get guns that do not suck, it becomes quite easy.

False sadly . It seems clear this is a console user attempting to understand pc gaming.

Whatever, I've played and beaten them all. Sadly, I know what I'm talking about, can you so the same my young friend?

#35 Edited by Maddie_Larkin (6040 posts) -

Usually everything sells better on consoles, why do you think PC losses so many exclusives and you get PC gamers begging for ports and only get them once the initial sales have hit consoles first.

PC gamers did it to themselves tho it's just too easy to pirate on PC.

So shielder, does that mean that console games sell better on PC aswell then? given that most of your previous 3rd party console exclusives are on PC these days aswell?

#36 Posted by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

Usually everything sells better on consoles...

Prove this point.

#37 Edited by pelvist (4225 posts) -

All of the consoles together ....maybe.

Id imagine STALKER has a bit too much depth for console gamers though.

#38 Posted by Shielder7 (4329 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

Usually everything sells better on consoles...

Prove this point.

Since Steam refuses to release sales numbers it can't be done, a rock retarded hermits love to hide under. I could show physical sales, but something tells me you and every other moronic hermit is just waiting for that so you can go off like a brain damaged woody woodpecker to go "digital sales.... digital sales" Like I'm purposely choosing not to show those even tho nothing could be further from the truth.

Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious, there is a reason Developers usually make games for consoles first, they sell more and they know their games is a lot less likely to be pirated period.

#39 Edited by Wasdie (48794 posts) -

A game like Fallout 1 & 2 are practically unmarketable today. Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns had to be Kickstarted and aren't going to be runaway successes. Fallout 1 & 2 were successful relative to the market when they were released, but that market wasn't even 1/100th of the size it is today. No publisher in their right mind would have bothered to back a game like that. A handful of devs making a game in a small office doesn't require massive sales to keep the business running. It's just a different time.

It would be a tragedy for a series like Fallout to not be given a proper facelift and re-imagining with modern tech. Fallout 3, no matter how casual you think it is, was a brilliant way to update the series. Fallout New Vegas was even better despite its bugs. I don't cling to the past and pretend it's far better because I want everybody on System Wars to think I'm a sophisticated gamer who is better than everybody else. I accept when stuff is outdated and just best left in the past. Nostalgia is not something to solely invest in.

However all of that is irrelevant because this is about STALKER, a game envisioned and created within the last console generation. The game itself is not inherently complex, in fact it's pretty straight forward which is one of it's strengths. However it's very trial and error and the large levels/diverse environments would have been difficult to do with only 512mbs of RAM. Gameplay wise the game wouldn't have changed much but tech wise it would have been a mess. STALKER games as we know them aren't the shining beacon of quality with them often requiring mods just to make them playable without tons of bugs/crashes.

It was logical that a developer would want to expand the potential market of their game, but the STALKER series only found success within a niche market mostly located in Eastern Europe where they do not play console games. STALKER 2 on a console would have barely made any money. Too niche.

#40 Edited by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@Shielder7 said:

Usually everything sells better on consoles...

Prove this point.

Since Steam refuses to release sales numbers it can't be done, a rock retarded hermits love to hide under. I could show physical sales, but something tells me you and every other moronic hermit is just waiting for that so you can go off like a brain damaged woody woodpecker to go "digital sales.... digital sales" Like I'm purposely choosing not to show those even tho nothing could be further from the truth.

Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious, there is a reason Developers usually make games for consoles first, they sell more and they know their games is a lot less likely to be pirated period.

So, you resort to insults because you can't provide evidence? Amateur.

#41 Edited by speedfreak48t5p (4954 posts) -

What an awful thread. Stop making threads.

#42 Edited by Shielder7 (4329 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@Shielder7 said:

Usually everything sells better on consoles...

Prove this point.

Since Steam refuses to release sales numbers it can't be done, a rock retarded hermits love to hide under. I could show physical sales, but something tells me you and every other moronic hermit is just waiting for that so you can go off like a brain damaged woody woodpecker to go "digital sales.... digital sales" Like I'm purposely choosing not to show those even tho nothing could be further from the truth.

Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious, there is a reason Developers usually make games for consoles first, they sell more and they know their games is a lot less likely to be pirated period.

So, you resort to insults because you can't provide evidence? Amateur.

Actually I can provide evidence and I did. Developers actions towards making their games on consoles first (i.e. GTA 5, Batman AC) and the ease of piracy on PCs cutting into profits are evidence. I just can't prove it because proof is a mathematical term and since your precious Steam won't release numbers it can't be proven, just like I can't prove Evolution but it's still a Fact.

#43 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

My friend, if you have nothing to contribute...

Somehow you always seem to have nothing to contribute, even to your own threads

#44 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@Shielder7 said:

Usually everything sells better on consoles...

Prove this point.

Since Steam refuses to release sales numbers it can't be done, a rock retarded hermits love to hide under. I could show physical sales, but something tells me you and every other moronic hermit is just waiting for that so you can go off like a brain damaged woody woodpecker to go "digital sales.... digital sales" Like I'm purposely choosing not to show those even tho nothing could be further from the truth.

Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious, there is a reason Developers usually make games for consoles first, they sell more and they know their games is a lot less likely to be pirated period.

So, you resort to insults because you can't provide evidence? Amateur.

Actually I can provide evidence and I did. Developers actions towards making their games on consoles first (i.e. GTA 5, Batman AC) and the ease of piracy on PCs cutting into profits are evidence. I just can't prove it because proof is a mathematical term and since your precious Steam won't release numbers it can't be proven, just like I can't prove Evolution but it's still a Fact.

Don't be silly, Evolution is a theory

#45 Edited by TheFadeForever (1379 posts) -

@Shielder7:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sega-sells-more-pc-than-console-games-but-pachinko-machines-eclipse-both/1100-6417618/

Don't make claims when you can't back it up lol

#46 Edited by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

Actually I can provide evidence and I did. Developers actions towards making their games on consoles first (i.e. GTA 5, Batman AC) and the ease of piracy on PCs cutting into profits are evidence. I just can't prove it because proof is a mathematical term and since your precious Steam won't release numbers it can't be proven, just like I can't prove Evolution but it's still a Fact.

You cited no evidence. So, you provided evidence, yet you cannot provide it? What?

Jesus Christ, provide an argument supported with sources, or shut up.

#47 Edited by Roler42 (159 posts) -
@Shielder7 said:

I just can't prove it

And the argument ends right here, no need for anymore replies :) Now if you think games sell more on consoles...

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/20/alan-wake-pc-recoups-dev-and-marketing-costs-in-48-hours/

This was a AAA release exclusive to the 360, it only took it 2 days on Steam and the devs made their developement and marketing costs back :) unless you want to damage control it and claim it probably didn't cost that much XD

This also should answer TC's question, some games just don't click with the audience, specially when said audience is so close minded into a single kind of game

#48 Edited by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:

Usually everything sells better on consoles, why do you think PC losses so many exclusives and you get PC gamers begging for ports and only get them once the initial sales have hit consoles first.

PC gamers did it to themselves tho it's just too easy to pirate on PC.

As a pc harcore pc gamer, it's difficult to argue against this. It's a valid point. Even now, fellow pc enthusiasts have not leaned. If only they poured as much money into software as that $5000 hardware.

#49 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

As a pc harcore pc gamer, it's difficult to argue against this. It's a valid point. Even now, fellow pc enthusiasts have not leaned. If only they poured as much money into software as that $5000 hardware.

It baffles me why they still allow your stupid ass to make threads

#50 Posted by blangenakker (1727 posts) -

I kinda like to think most console gamers would find it boring