2k's excuss for not having Civilization Revolution on PC, total BS?

from GalCiv2 Forums

I read this on MTV Multiplayer, and i read this blog,

I own a PC. I like PC games. But as I said yesterday, the “Civilization” series simply isn’t up my alley. It’s why “Civilization Revolution”’s streamlined approach clicks.

But what if I’ve tired of the players in the lobbies of Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. We’ve heard the complaints before. What if I want “Civilization Revolution” on my PC? Unfortunately, a producer at 2K Games says it’s “never” going to happen.

He repeated the word “never” twice when I asked, actually.

They must really mean it. But why?

“This is not a PC game,” said producer Jason Bergman to Multiplayer. “It’s been designed as a console game. It’s very, very different from ‘Civ[ilization] 4′ and we don’t want it to be looked at as ‘Civ[ilization] 5.’ We don’t want people to think that this is meant to replace the existing ‘Civ’ games. This is a totally different game, created exclusively for consoles. It is never coming to PC.”

And it’s not because Firaxis don’t have the manpower or technical hang-ups. The prototype for “Civilization Revolution” originated on the PC, but the interface was created from day one to be manipulated with a gamepad in the player’s hands. “There was never a mouse interface; it was always designed around a controller,” continued Bergman.

Last week, 2K showed “Civilization Revolution” to the San Francisco-based media (we had a separate demo a few days later at 2K’s offices). Bergman said a common question was over enabling keyboard and mouse support in the PlayStation 3 version. Microsoft doesn’t allow the feature, but Sony’s had no problem with it; look at “Unreal Tournament 3,” for example.

Bergman’s rationale is simple. “…the answer is no, because why would you need to? The game has not been designed for that [controller]; we would have to make a new interface for that. People sort of assume it’s the other way around, like it is with the PC RTSs that are ported. This is not a port, this is an entirely new game.”

While “Civilization Revolution” on the PC appears to be out, reading between the lines, Bergman seems to be suggesting a “Civilization 5″ is in the cards, as well. 

Is it just me or is 2k making up some BS excuess just Lucas Arts because they didn't want their game to get pirated?

100,981 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No there will be others who deduce a similar conspiracy theory, the latter has taken over as the "Sport of Kings". If they called it "GruntFuttuck Revolution" noone would give a hoot, its more people think they are "missing out" on something. If it is indeed a "completely new game" - they would be insane to release it on PC, it would just muddy the waters horribly with the whole Civ Genre. If its not "totally new" why worry ? I personally would find watching paint dry more exciting than worrying over this.

There is more chance of man landing on Mars in the next 10 years than Sid allowing Fireaxis - or anyone else for that matter - to screw around with the Civ Franchise and blow the PC fan base.

Move on wait, for Civ5 - then listen to the yelling in reverse as console players moan about it being "PC only".

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time"

Regards
Zy
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm still playing Civ3Conquest. lol. I am curious as how you would be able to play Civilization on console though. Wouldn't that be sort of frustrating?
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
I, like many others, get quite annoyed when some company makes up some idiotic excuse.
Taking this point to the extreme, though, yields an entirely unreasonable: "Oh, they're not porting it the PC! No matter what their reason is, it must be because they didn't want their product pirated." With this attitude, you can get the moral high ground over any company releasing a game not to be ported to the PC.
It's just as unreasonable as an Obama supporter saying that the reason John Citizen criticized Obama's lack of experience (for example) was really because Obama's black - no matter what John Citizen says.

2K has designed the entire interface for the console. The guy was also pretty emphatic about their reason - so why then go and say that it's a BS reason?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd say this is actually one of the better reasons. Have you played Civ Revolution? It wouldn't work on the PC and they would indeed alienate the complete fanbase.

Leave Revolution for the consoles (it's fun) and wait for the next real Civ to come out as it always has: PC only.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm still playing Civ3Conquest. lol.


*Pssst* *Looks around furtively* So do I :LOL:

Regards
Zy
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm sure the game is good for consoles, but I'm not sure why anyone would want a conzolized version of Civ4 ported back to the PC.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm still playing Civ3Conquest. lol. I am curious as how you would be able to play Civilization on console though. Wouldn't that be sort of frustrating?


Civ Revoloution is specially designed for consoles. BTW, does anyone know if it's coming out for PSP? It's on the DS, and I don't have one of those...
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Maybe they outsourced the game to a "platform developer", one who doesn't know how to make games on real computers???

That would explain how they can be so sure they will never, never make it PC, and the rest of the excuses would be to cover this up???
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
I'll be blunt--if you really prefer to play Civ Rev than Civ IV, you'll probably prefer console games generally to PC games, so buy a console and play it. I do have a PS3 (bought for and used primarily as a Bluray player) and I have played the demo. Checkers is closer to chess than this mess is to real Civ (admittedly, as a huge Civ fan since Civ II, I've been appalled for months at the mere concept of Civ Rev, so I'm a bit biased). Frankly, I hope Civ Rev is a big bust for Firaxis (and it may be--as dumbed down as it is, it still may be too mentally taxing for console players). Otherwise, Civ V may well be Civ Rev II and console only as well.

Oh, and I couldn't let this go:

It's just as unreasonable as an Obama supporter saying that the reason John Citizen criticized Obama's lack of experience (for example) was really because Obama's black - no matter what John Citizen says.



As a genuine liberal Democrat (which Obama ain't), I don't like Obama much and am uncertain I can even bring myself to vote for him. Nonetheless, when your hypothetical John (McCain) citizen questions his experience. eight time out of ten (charitably) it's because he's black.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
As a genuine liberal Democrat (which Obama ain't), I don't like Obama much and am uncertain I can even bring myself to vote for him. Nonetheless, when your hypothetical John (McCain) citizen questions his experience. eight time out of ten (charitably) it's because he's black.


My apologies. I meant a totally generic case, using Obama as perhaps not the best example. I frequently get annoyed when any criticism, however valid, is given to a black, and then thoroughly condemned because of "racism". Granted, there are times when racism is indeed the reason, but it's totally unreasonable to say that this is true for every case, or indeed (IMO) most cases.
I personally disagree with your last statement, but you're probably more aware of the circs than I am, considering that I don't live in America :P

Maybe they outsourced the game to a "platform developer", one who doesn't know how to make games on real computers???

That would explain how they can be so sure they will never, never make it PC, and the rest of the excuses would be to cover this up???


...or maybe they're being quite genuine? On a side note, I'm glad to see you're using question marks - it seems to be one of the most neglected, along with the apostrophe, punctuation marks online :P
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Yes, I didn't want to actually imply this was the case... I like slight, periodic poking over full-out slandering them :) :D
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Is it just me or is 2k making up some BS excuess just Lucas Arts because they didn't want their game to get pirated?


What do you expect? I dont think that civ rev would sell any good as a pc game. And it may even dampen the sells of the next civ game for the pc if anyone thinks its like the other pc games.

Seriously, there are enough civ games for pc, play those if you want to play civ on pc.

Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with 2K here. It doesn't look like it will be a game that traditional Civ players on the PC would want to play really. I think the use of the 'Civ' name is for brand recognition, it's not like the old Civ games at all.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Civ REv is a good game...but if it was on the PC it would be a let down, considering how great Civ 4 was. Im playing it now and its a very short version, meaning you can finish a game in, say 2-3 hours easy...and on the PC that wouldnt go over I bet. PC players tend to expect more length out of games and more depth. Now Civ Rev, has great content and such, but you go thru eras based on the number of techs you have researched, so you can fly thru eras very rapidly and considering that, most techs seem to take 7 turns or lower(depending of course), I was amazed at how fast I had tanks and such. On the PC I would be way disappointed in that. And dont forget, they are trying to get into other markets other than PC's. Heck why not have a Gal Civ Revolutions and get this great game onto the consoles, as well. Makes good sense from a money standpoint and for those that dont have pc's or use their 360's, WII's, and PSX's on travel trips and such, its great!
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
You can already give yourself a 3 hour game on Civ 4. You don't need to buy some console port to get that.

CivRev is fun but Civ4 has everything it has already and more. Civ 4 allows you to customise the game how you want. Short game, epic marathon game. Customisable events/features thanks to the great community.



Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Actually, this is one of the most honest responces I've heard as to why a game wouldn't be released on a particular platform. I've played many games one console or PC which, when played, quite obviously feel like they were developed for the other platform. It gives a game an unsatisfying and unfinished feel when you play it. True, some games may be successfully released on both, but not all games.

The other provided reason is equally valid. They don't want to do anything that might give the impression that this is "Civ 5". They obviously care about their Civ franchise, and don't want to produce a game that is so far outside the normal model for that franchise that it might give the impression that they are breaking with the normal (and so far successful) model. By isolating it on the console market, they send the strong message that they intend to continue the tradition of the Civ type games.

This is a far more honest response than what Lucasarts provided.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
Wow, people are complaining because a company doesn't want to make a shitty port? They build this for consoles, it would not be very good on PC. We don't want ports, because they never look or play as good off their primary system.

Ports are hurting the market, but filling their pockets. For 2K not to do this, shows some actual desire to make good games. And your whining about it? Go buy a console if you want to play it, it's a fun game. But it's not the same as Civilization. It's much lighter and more casual.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why would you want to pay $50 for a dumbed down, stripped down version of Civ when Civ 4 and its expansions are so inexpensive these days? Leave Revolutions to the consoletards, you're not missing out on anything.
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
I, like many others, get quite annoyed when some company makes up some idiotic excuse.Taking this point to the extreme, though, yields an entirely unreasonable: "Oh, they're not porting it the PC!



I can assure you this many others you're literally assuming is just a small minority among the Civilization fan base. If you are in a position to talk, play Civ4 and than Revolution, try a friend console if you don't have one.

Suffice to say, it's a legitimate reason why 2K doesn't release it for the PC. Between making a few casual people like you angry who just want to play without paying for a console and got flaked to hell by the Civ PC hardcore fans, I think the choice is pretty obvious. If Revolution is to be released for the PC, most PC Civ fans will consider it to be a major step backward from Civ4, and the producers and publisher certainly wouldn't want that kind of reputation.


And let me say this, although I don't think it's applied to Revolution since it's not a triple A tittle. But nowaday with the consoles is going strong especially when they're fueled with the console wars, we see consoles getting more and more exclusive tittles. As a result, I see a lot of PC fans start making up BS excuse for this and that just to hide their own desire of playing everything on their PC. Grow up people, the gaming market is much larger then it was 10 years ago and the PC is no longer the dominating platform. If you want to play more, you gotta pay more, don't live in that fantasy of gotta catch them all with just one single platform and then pulling conspiracy theory out of your butt.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top

AS a long-time Civ fan, I don't see any way they could have made it for counsels without severly dumbing it down and reducing options and complexity.  That's fine if that's what it takes to make a Civ game for those systems.  It's an untapped market for that series, so I can see why they'd want it, but why in the world would anyone who actually plays real PC strategy games ever want something like that for the PC?  I wouldn't, I'd rather play Civ 3 or 4.

Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
I'm sure the game is good for consoles, but I'm not sure why anyone would want a conzolized version of Civ4 ported back to the PC.


I agree, it would seem a little watered down if it came back to PC, I'd much rather have that manpower working on Civ 5 instead of wasting time on a port that is dwarved by Civ 4. If I had a console I would get it but its nothing big missing out on this. Its a decent excuse compared to Lucasarts. 2k just thinks we won't like Revolution if it came back to PC and much rather make an even better Civ game exclusive for PC in the future. You start porting thing here and there; you end up like Ubisoft or EA with numerous bad ports and an angry fan base. I still find Lucasarts stupid, but 2k/Firaxis* has always supported PC and they know we want good games not bad ports.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't care. I haven't liked a Civ game since Civ 2.
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
It's a console game, designed for consoles. If you're sitting in front of your PC with a controller in your hands and dislike typical PC-games, chances are you'd be fitter, happier and more productive if you just went ahead, dropped the pretense and bought a console.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wanting a consolegame with all its limitations on the PC is quite fantastic to read. I thought everybody hated ports.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
Campaigner, we do hate ports. Porting from PC/MAC to boxtard edition is fine, but porting from boxtard edition to PC/MAC sucks.

We also personally boycott companies that release boxtard editions only -like Lucas for Force Unleashed which screams "gimme uber C/GPU NOW!" Again, thanks Lucas for not only destroying StarWars for me (gimmicky edits 4TL) but also my gaming experience from Dark Forces through Jedi Academy.

If boxtards came with a decent "keyboard" and mouse, I might be willing to play my son's xbox360.