Would Stalker 2 have sold more on consoles?

Not a chance.

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

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.

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.

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

Damn, I miss STALKER.

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

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.

stupid thread

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.

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.

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.

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

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

But it would be redesigned for consoles like Fallout 3.

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.

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.

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.

Wasdie was talking about Stalker.

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

no one is your friend here, nor are we young

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.

@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.

Sorry, what?

Stalker is hardly complex

Tell this to the Titanfall drones

This is true. However stalker is very skill based.

?

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

Prove this point.

All of the consoles together ....maybe.

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

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.

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.

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

What an awful thread. Stop making threads.

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.

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

Don't be silly, Evolution is a theory

@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

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.

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

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

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