Alan’s Wake: Remedy Too Teeny For PC

This broke on Friday, but worth bringing up here, I think. Remember the wide-spread eye-rolling provoked by the ludicrous piece of marketing gibberish that the atmospheric horror game basically wouldn’t work on the PC due to a lack of sofa-magic or something? Well, Remedy’s Oskari Häkkinen tells VG247 that’s more of a preference thing, and the real reason is that they’re a small 50-person company and don’t really have the staff to do both at once, at least well. They’ll sit down with Microsoft afterwards. My take? Expect to see Alan Wake PC six months to a year after the 360 release. They’ll want to maximise its console-exclusive potential then consider a port.


  1. Flameberge says:

    Sounds about right, I don’t think this will be a massive revelation to anyone, that, y’know, the bullcrap they came up with a couple of weeks ago wasn’t the real reason!

    I also would not be surprised to see Alan Wake on PC after it’s had a suitably lengthy period of exclusivity to the 360 that satisfies Microsoft. That’s if Remedy ever remember to getting round to releasing the thing in the first place, I suppose.

  2. Sagan says:

    That I don’t mind. I will buy it.

    Except I still don’t believe Microsoft will release this on PC. Pretty sure they haven’t released a PC game in a while.

    • Jad says:

      Yeah, Gears of War not only got a really nice PC port, but even had extra levels that the consoles never saw. Gears of War 2 never came out for the PC.

      Microsoft has a very good reason to keep Alan Wake from ever touching the PC, and that is because there are a substantial number of PS3-PC gamers, who buy PS3 exclusives like Uncharted 2, PS3 versions of multiplatform but console-only games like Darksiders, and then the PC version of any PC-Xbox titles like Bioshock or Mass Effect. Microsoft wants to force those people to also buy an Xbox for Alan Wake and Gears 2, and then maybe choose the Xbox for their multiplatform gaming needs.

    • eyemessiah says:

      Edit:[Pls Delete, mis-comment.]

    • Will says:

      Has it been as long between GoW2’s release and a possible PC edition as it was between GoW1?

    • Optimaximal says:

      Epic have said there won’t be a GoW2 for PC. Reasons cited include piracy & lack of a demographic on the platform that suits the series.

      The truth behind it is that GoW had a cockeyed GFW:Live implementation which means the game broke a while back and was discontinued from sale rather than fixed, preventing sales ever reaching a level that justified the port.

      That, and it was pirated to here and back and everyone hated the macho-beefcake-ness of it.

    • Jad says:


      Yes it has. Gears 1 came out in November 2006 for the Xbox 360, November 2007 for the PC. Gears 2 came out for the Xbox 360 in November 2008, meaning if they were keeping to the same schedule, Gears 2 should have come out late last year.


      Well, I thoroughly enjoyed the “macho-beefcake-ness” of Gears of War, in the same way that I’ve loved many cheesy, campy action movies. I’m sure there were many wet-behind-the-ears teenage males who took the testosterone-soaked storyline too seriously, and there were plenty of tight-assed, hoity-toity PC gamers who sniffed and stuck their noses in the air and said “not for me!”, but none of them stopped me from being entertained by a very silly and very fun experience.

    • rocketman71 says:


      Gears of war was FAR from a decent PC port. Constant blue screens and crashes to desktop, checkpoints, not to mention the certification fiasco.

      Not that we lost much. Never understood what people saw in it. Perhaps some people like that bag of hot air that is CliffyB.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Gears was great – on Xbox at least. A marvellous game.

    • Jad says:


      I never played the multiplayer, so the whole GFWL, certificate thing passed me by, and I had no crashes or bugs at all. And I really can’t summon up any kind of ire against checkpoints nowadays, they worked well enough for me.

      I found the gameplay to be really fun, with an interesting game mechanic, nice visuals, some fun set pieces (the protect-your-buddy-with-the-spotlight part standing out) and a hilariously goofy, campy story.

      While I’m sure plenty of people have legitimate complaints about the gameplay, and that is totally fine, it aggravates me when people just jump on the whole “its a popular, mainstream title that console gamers like, which means I am required to hate it” bandwagon. Not saying that you’re doing that, but seriously, I don’t give a shit if Cliffy B. is a douchebag or a saint. The gameplay is the only important thing.

      To make this post a bit more on-topic, if Max Payne came out on consoles now, a number of the same people who loved it back in 2001 on the PC would now be calling it consolized garbage. It’s a third-person shooter, with corny dialog and a (partially) regenerating health system — only mouth-breathing consolers would like anything like that!

    • Tei says:

      Re: gears

      I don’t know on the console, but I have played the PC version, and I have not notice anything special. Small areas, repetitive, dull mechanic (shot and cover) all monsters are the same, lame “boss”. It looks to me like a sub-average game 4/10. I don’t know what is the magic that operate here that make it a good game (more than a good game!) on the consoles.

    • tapanister says:


      Did we play the same GoW on PC? With the broken GfWL, lack of dedicated servers (M$ did it first! Or rather Epic… Ugh. ) and horrible jitters and stuttering even on top of the range machines? GoW is the game I regret the most buying after Quake IV. So much wasted potential.

      I’m not interested in Alan Wake either way, since it’s going to be published for GfWL, if at all.

    • tapanister says:

      Oh btw I should mention that I loved the core game in both Single and Multiplayer of Gears, but the host advantage and stuttering greatly diminished the experience for me.

    • malkav11 says:

      Gears 1 was pretty bland, at least the little of it I played. I simply couldn’t get sufficiently invested in the simplistic and annoyingly lengthy cover-whack-a-mole shooting to get past the ludicrous manslab storylines (the really weird part is that there are people in the universe who -aren’t- four feet wide and appear to be wearing the same armor) and there wasn’t a great deal of variety on display. (As an aside, when people compare ME2’s shootery to Gears of War 1, I nod and agree. It’s not a compliment, to me.)

      The thing is, Gears of War 2 has a lot more imagination, offering all sorts of variations on their basic cover combat setup. It’s also more colorful and there’s a greater range of environments. And then there’s the much-lauded horde mode.

      If the PC had to get just one of the two, it should have been the sequel.

    • Forscythe says:

      @Jad – It’s interesting, because I did just play Max Payne for the first time a few months ago, and I really do think it was garbage. Actually I loved the setting, atmosphere, story, and art, but the gameplay was so amazingly repetitive and the environments were so uninteresting and bare (and also repetitive). It also did feel like a console port with a lot of compromises.

      On the other hand, I loved Payne 2, so who knows…

    • hairypotato says:

      RE: GoW

      I’m in the same boat as Tei.

      Played on PC, no idea what’s good about, uninstall, never stop hearing people saying things like “it’s amazing” but I have no idea why.

      Seems bad. Don’t enjoy the boring cover system and small area on rails-y-ness about it. No fun mechanics IMO.

      RE: MS ‘forcing’ people to buy XBOX – as long as they keep making crappy games, I don’t care =P

    • Wulf says:

      I have to say I feel much the same way as Tei, too. What I didn’t get is how the story is supposed to be cheesy. Stubbs the Zombie was cheesy, but Gears of War took itself far, far too seriously, like it didn’t want me to laugh at it, and every time I did it would give me angry manboy stares. Yet I couldn’t stop laughing at it, because it was simply terrible, plot-wise. It could’ve been that magical kind of Bionic Commando: Rearmed terrible where I’m encouraged to laugh at it, but alas, it was not.

      And when I think about it, I wonder just how much of the console audience considers Gears of War as some kind of modern Shakespeare because of how seriously it takes itself, then I go from laughing to crying. So yes, it’s terrible, but it doesn’t encourage everyone to think of it as a joke, something that it should be actively doing with the plot and characters that it had.

      “Now, badass generic marine guy is BACK, he’s pissed off, and he has a soul patch.”

      The gameplay was boring in the first one (not so much in the second), sure, but it could’ve all been saved if the damn plot didn’t expect me not to laugh. It also made me feel rather guilty that I did laugh so much. Sort of how I can’t keep a straight face whenever CliffyB is interviewed and talks straight-up (yo) about his games. …and now that I think about it, Epic Games has become a tragic thing.


      At least there’s still the Unreal engine and SDK!


    • FunkyBadger says:

      Its doubtless ammusing when people take fun games *far* too seriously.


      Anyhoo – I haven’t played GoW on the PC, but suspect the casual disdain bandied about is more of the “she didn’t dump me, I dumped her” hurt feelings of the PC ubermensch. Gears1 single-plaer was great, but its hands-down the best co-op game. The pumping station on insanity difficulty is an absolute highpoint of action gaming…

    • malkav11 says:

      Karen Traviss’ novel(s?) almost make me want to care about the Gears of War storyline. Almost. But then, she got me to care about Star Wars prequel stuff, even if it was only the clone commandos in her lovely Republic Commando series.

  3. oceanclub says:

    Presumably the six-month PC port will remove the sofa-only portions of gameplay.


    • Okami says:

      I think they want to give pc players enough time to buy sofas…

    • subedii says:

      I thought it was so that we could adjust our eyes to using a television screen?

  4. Vinraith says:

    If that’s the game they’re playing, I wouldn’t expect much of a port.

  5. Isometric says:

    That makes a lot of sense and I would welcome it with open arms.

  6. qx says:

    I’m not interested in playing a console game on the PC, so no thank you.

    • Jad says:

      I, for one, am interested in playing good games on my PC. If Alan Wake is a good game, which is probable considering the developer’s pedigree, then I want to play it on my preferred platform.

      Arbitrary distinctions like saying this is a (couch-friendly, big-screen-TV) console game not to be played on your (“intimate”) PC is exactly the kind of bullshit we should be pushing back on, not propagating.

    • SheffieldSteel says:

      I think it might be ebst if we all try to avoid pigeonholing games as being “console” or “sofa” games – if only because there isn’t necessarily a good correlation between the different sets.

    • Hmm says:

      What makes Alan Wake a console game? The fact it’s a third person shooter? Was Max Payne a console game too, in your book?

      Honestly, stop with this nonsense. I would never play some games if they weren’t released on PC. Street Fighter 4, for example. Bought it and enjoy it.

    • whalleywhat says:

      I would say “console game” is a relative term. It’s obvious that Bioshock is more of a console game than System Shock 2 or Oblivion is more of a console game than Morrowind, but I doubt anyone thinks twice about playing those on a PC. Maybe it’s the lack of dirt-farming?

  7. ZIGS says:

    I bet the guy was saying to himself “Christ, I just hope everyone forgot that we were focusing this primarily on PC, saying how it’d take full advantage of quad-cores and whatnot”

    • Choca says:

      Yeah I don’t really care that they’re not doing it for the PC anymore but the bullshit excuses are insulting.

  8. Anders Moberg says:

    A PC version afterward sounds reasonable. I don’t think they’ll scrap all the work that they did (presumably) on the PC version.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      @ Anders

      Well, I read an article today that where the devs said that the game had been finished for a year and they had spent the last year polishing and tweaking.

      Considering the PC version was scrubbed only recently, surely this means they’ve had a PC version ready to go for ages and they are literally just holding back for a money grab. grrr. Also, a year’s worth of tweaking does not speak volumes of a team pushed to the limit.

      Here’s the article

  9. Jason says:

    Total bullshit.

    Not only is the fact that they SAID that it was a PC focused game, there’s the fact that they probably are doing most of the development on PC, and then running it on their dev kits.

    There’s some work involved in a port, but not “OMG, we need 50 more people to change the A button prompts to “Press Left Mouse Button!”!!!11!”

    • Flameberge says:

      Of course. But Microsoft have paid Remedy lots and lots of money to make their PC-focussed game too intimate for a PC, that must only be played on a console.
      At least until 6 – 18 months after release. At which point playing the game on a PC will be ok again. Yay.

    • Mo says:

      No, there’s a tonne of work involved in a Xbox to Windows port … yes, it’s pretty much the “easiest” port imaginable, but it’s still harder than you’d think. Getting the code “running” doesn’t take too long, but there’s a huge stack of controls and usability related issues that need to be resolved, as well as platform-specific optimizations.

    • SheffieldSteel says:

      I think the costs of conversion and platform-specific optimisations are pretty much negligible on the PC. It is the cost of doing QA that’s prohibitive. There are just so many driver combinations.

      Of course, the idea behind DirectX was to eliminate all those problems, but sadly it was designed by Microsoft.

      So here we are.

  10. Javier-de-Ass says:

    console crap

  11. Berzee says:

    “Remember the wide-spread eye-rolling provoked by the ludicrous piece of marketing gibberish that the atmospheric horror game basically was too intimate for the cold, emotionless PC?”

    I think you have forgotten the details. That is entirely opposite what they said.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      Berzee: You’re entirely right. It was so much nonsense it flew straight through me.


    • Berzee says:

      Understandably, you associate “intimate” with “comfortable” and think that because a sofa is the latter, a sofa is the former. Oho, you are wrong, sir, you are wrong.

      Do you suppose they could fit their entire development team on a sofa?

  12. Vitalis says:

    Sort of reminds me of the LucasArts ‘we can’t make Force Unleashed for PC’ story…

    Might just be the similar smell of bullshit.

  13. jti says:

    Ok, I can live with that. I can check the grade of the product with the console people and then have it on my PC when it’s done right for the platform. No worries there and if my fellow Finns turn out to have made a turd I can stay clear of it.

  14. jackflash says:

    Console exclusives followed by PC port trigger my automatic “won’t buy until 50% off” reflex.

    Did any other marketing geniuses out there notice how tepid Mass Effect PC sales were (released long after console exclusive) compared to the extremely strong PC sales of Mass Effect 2 (released simultaneously)?

    • jti says:

      Say what? You have a console there? Go play it then, on that sofa. I don’t care about sales. I bought Mass Effect 1, wanted it, only got PC. Why would you buy a good product in sale just because it was released in consoles first? Makes no sense.

    • jackflash says:

      No, I do not have a console. And what I said makes perfect sense. Demand for a game peaks when it is first released. As the marketing juggernaut winds down, people feel less urgency to buy the game. Are you seriously going to pony up $50 for a game that came out a year or more ago? If so, I have a Steam sale for you.

      Not to mention the fact that I don’t like to reward companies for taking their plays out of Microsoft’s bullshit playbook. I’m not going to give them full price for treating me like a second-rate customer. If you want to, go right ahead.

    • Wulf says:

      Wot? That can’t be right, you’re lying! Mass Effect 2 didn’t have strong sales, it was undercut by PC piracy and 99.99000019% of all PC users had an illegal copy, leaving only a few poor saps who actually bought the thing.

      We’re PC users, we steal everything and pay for nothing, so much so that Ubisoft is in a technology war against us to try and make us actually pay for their games.

      Left 4 Dead 2 and Red Faction: Guerilla had bloody awful sales too, despite being decent games which sold incredibly well to the console audiences.

      Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a guy in a suit here from the Cadaverini family whom I must talk business with, yes?

    • Psychopomp says:

      “Are you seriously going to pony up $50 for a game that came out a year or more ago?”

      link to

      And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…

  15. Jimbo says:

    I’ve been thinking that more publishers might start following the Force Unleashed approach for a while now. ie. claim the PC version doesn’t and will never exist -in order to maximize console sales- and then announce it well after the console launch window, in order to pick up the scraps left to be had from the PC market.

    It makes sense, especially if the publisher is Microsoft. At least until people get wise to it anyway.

    • subedii says:

      Unfortunately “the Force Unleashed” route may as well be renamed the “kill this product” route.

      Here are some factors that adversely affect the sales of a product. See if you can spot some of them in our current scenario:

      – Deny all existence of a port until right before release.

      – Set the release date to about a year AFTER the main console sales, ensuring that:
      a) It completely misses all the hype and massive advertising campaign
      b) Most people would have gotten it on another platform by now
      c) Even if they didn’t, the game is old news and already in the bargain bin for said platforms
      d) if the title is mediocre (or even “good but not that good”), people will be well aware of that fact by the time you get around to releasing the new version.

      – Do almost no advertising of the new port because you have neither the budget nor the interest to ensure that people even know of its existence .

      – Release during the Christmas period when all the other major releases are coming out.

      Out of that list of four, I can all but guarantee at least three of them will take place, and all assuming that there even is a port coming

      Now then, bonus question: When the port inevitably suffers horrendously bad sales, ALL of the above bad decisions will be completely ignored. What will the failure of the product be solely attributed to?

    • ZIGS says:

      Let me take a wild guess: piracy?

    • Jimbo says:

      The Force Unleashed sold 7 million units. Do you think having the PC version available day & date with the console launch puts that number up or down? There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the answer is ‘down’.

      They’ll happily take a hit in PC version sales so long as they more than make up for it in console sales. Then they’ll kick out the PC port for next to nothing and pick up whatever profit is left to be had – or not, depending on whether they think it’s worth it. Doesn’t really matter if the PC sales are ‘bad’, so long as they more than cover the cost of releasing the PC version, which I’m assuming is next to nothing once you already have a 360 version.

      If Microsoft are publishing then the more console sales the better, because they pick up the console tax on each sale too.

    • subedii says:

      Here’s the thing though, you’re stating that the PC release inherently reduces overall sales of the product, which frankly has not been proven, and I don’t believe.

      Or to put it another way, are Bioware then complete idiots for sim-shipping shipping Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2? Because they clearly felt it was the right way to maximise their profits, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it. They certainly didn’t have any problems making Mass Effect 1 a platform exclusive for 6 months, they could have easily done the same thing this time around. Instead, they released both versions when the hype was at its highest. If their sales have suffered for that, it isn’t showing in the overall numbers so far, as far as I’m aware they’re extremely happy with how successful it’s been.

      Meanwhile, I must have seen it about 3-4 times now where a publisher has completely hamstrung a PC release, and then when it’s failed, ignored everything else that they did and instead making the sole root of the problem “those dirty pirates”. Sometimes before dumping support for the platform altogether. Hence the problem.

    • Wulf says:


      I concur.

      The thing that many forget is the interest factor, this ties into word-of-mouth. For example, I suspect that Terry Cavanagh is pleased by how many copies of VVVVVV have sold, mostly because I keep talking to people about it, I cannot stop talking to poor unfortunates about its intricate gravity-flipping delights, and every day I seem to find some new prey upon whom I foist unexpected wonders, leading to jubilation.

      Why did I buy Mass Effect 2 after disliking Dragon Age so strongly? There are a few factors…

      – I liked Mass Effect 1.
      – It was released simultaneously alongside the consoles.
      – I was convinced by a reliable source that the needless padding and faux choices of DA were not present.

      The interest factor is something that comes about when people talk of a game, not just games journalists but those who’ve purchased a game. And if a game is good then these people will say enlightening things about that game, and they’ll have you think twice about your decision to overlook it. In fact, when it comes to the mainstream (unlike the indie scene, where my friends come to me for the info-laden goods), I tend to operate a lot on word-of-mouth from trusted sources to know if something is good.

      I bought Mass Effect 2 and enjoyed it.

      What happens if a game is released later? The interest factor kicks in and everyone talks about it, and whilst you’re interested in it you’re loathe to pick it up for a console. Eventually you just tune it out and figure that you’re not going to buy a game from a backstabbing developer who can’t manage an even almost-simultaneous ship, and thus the game gets correlated int that segment of the brain that houses movie tie-in games.

      Then when the PC port turns up much later, it’s viewed with mild disgust as an inverse reaction of the interest factor. Because after a certain point (possibly a month?) where the game is a no show and people are still talking about it, the interest factor inverts into the disinterest factor, and that only grows over time.

      tl;dr: Developers are collectively shooting themselves in the feet by not doing simultaneous releases, because there’s just no interest in the game that long after everyone else has already completed it. This also fosters hate for our console owning bretheren, whom we wll now despise for triggering the interest factor in regards to Alan Wake. Should Alan Wake turn up a year down the road… well, it’ll be a year too late for me.

    • subedii says:

      I think it’ll be a year too late for everyone, but most importantly, a year too late for the publishers themselves to make any real money from.

      What people need to remember is that marketing is HUGELY important to the success of a title. Many of the high budget titles released today, the AAA titles, they actually get advertising budgets higher then the title production costs. More money is spent on getting people to hear about the game, and get excited about it, than it is to actually make it.

      The reason is that the vast majority of games have a notoriously short shelf life at full price. A few months down the line, everyone’s forgotten about the title and are instead interested in the next big thing. It’s not strange to even see titles in the bargain bin at that point . The marketing budget is dedicated to maximising the title’s impact on release, an entire campaign ramped up and focussed towards one day: the release date.

      When you deliberately miss that campaign of interest building and advertising, you have already vastly undercut the profit potential of your port, and it’s crazy to have all those “we will have good sales since our console version did well” expectations. It won’t, never to that degree. You just obliterated your chief selling point.

  16. lethu says:

    No, sorry, I won’t play your console port… not even if it’s not a simple console port. One doesn’t play with my feelings, one doesn’t treat me like a 5 years old school boy. I have made it out of that school hell period alive just so people don’t treat me like shit anymore. You owe me respect, Mr. No respect, no bucks. So just shove that childish sofa nonsense bullshit up your collective arses, Mr Remedy and Mr Microsoft.

  17. Bhazor says:

    Hmm 6 month delay and get it £20 cheaper with bonus graphical effects (some flange tints and dildoed thong shading being my preferences) and some of the DLC included. I can live with that.

    Heck I might have even finished Dragon Age by then.

  18. LewieP says:

    I play my 360 on a monitor, what am I supposed to do!

    • eyemessiah says:

      I play PS3 on a monitor, what am *I* supposed to do???

    • jti says:

      Buy a sofa to go with the monitor, lads.

    • Bhazor says:

      So you can do that now? Do you need a monitor with built in speakers or can you plug your pc speakers into the console?

      As I don’t have a tv buying any console for me would cost an extra £300 for a small tv and a license. Which is loads of money!

    • LewieP says:

      I use VGA for my 360, but you can use DVI or HDMI (not all models have HDMI, but all new ones do now).

      Then I use my PC speakers.

      Although, just to note, if you own a TV, and don’t use it to watch/record TV, you do not need to own a TV license.

    • Antsy says:

      “Although, just to note, if you own a TV, and don’t use it to watch/record TV, you do not need to own a TV license.”

      This is untrue. I ended up in court as a student after taking that exact stance.

    • Harper says:

      And I play my PC on my TV from the sofa…

      What a weird world we live in.

    • Bhazor says:

      Thanks for the help LewieP.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      You have to get a license for your TV? What, is the government afraid you’re going to run someone over with it???

    • SheffieldSteel says:

      It is the price of the BBC

    • Vinraith says:


      Their television is primarily publicly supported, rather than being primarily ad supported like ours.

    • Jimbo says:

      What LewieP says about the license is correct. It says exactly that on the letters they send every 4 seconds if you don’t have a license.

      From their site: “You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.”

      Of course, if you have a TV aerial hooked up to your television and you’re sat there watching Eastenders, they probably aren’t going to believe you.

    • Nick says:

      @Vin: Actually its only the BBC that is public, all the other channels have advertising, primarily would be the wrong word.

      If you can prove that you are unable to recieve any BBC channels you don’t have to pay the fee, but thats it.

    • Cynic says:

      Then you should have won. Says right here on a “friendly” warning I have from them that you can own a TV and use it solely for video-games and not have to own a licence.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Not true, Nick. The license fee subsidises all available channels, including the various flavours of SKY.

      You can get away with not having paying the fee – but they’ll come round to check your house and everything.

      But, if you’re already off the radar – don’t have a TV – I don’t see how they’er going to get on your case when you get a new one.

    • Nick says:

      @Funky: Yes, but they still recive the vast majority of their revenue from advertising, unlike the BBC which is also the only part of television that doesn’t have adverts.

    • Vinraith says:


      I stand corrected.

      Presumably I’ve not seen any British TV from a non-BBC source. I only know that any BBC program that gets rebroadcast on this side of the Atlantic either gets edited for time or runs unusually long as a result of our stations inserting ads where none previously existed.

    • Nick says:

      Yeah, there is a similar issue when they show American hour long stuff on the BBC where it comes in at around 40-45 minutes long instead, but thn you get that on DVDs too.

  19. GLOWi says:

    Metro 2033 makers mentioned, that it had taken one week to port the game to XBOX.
    On the other hand, Remedy and MS have full right to put their game to whatewer platform they choose.
    But I don’t deny that I’m dissapointed that it’s not PC.

    • jti says:

      Probably true, and we all know the biggest reason for all this is not the guys doing this game but the publisher who has all the capital. I can see why they want to do this on console, I just hope that it’ll be on PC too. I can wait a bit, I don’t go with the hype and just have to have something on my PC on the day one because some marketing says so.

      You people just have to realise that it is not about getting a game at the same time as some console idiots, it’s about having a GOOD game on your PC when you start playing it.

      And about the console thing, ok maybe the inventory will be crap, but if this game was designed to be on PC first, I doubt that there’ll be anything worse than that. And if you’ve played on PC for longer than couple of years, you should have the patience of a turtle crossing sandy beach with operating systems.

    • Gutter says:

      Wait to see what the PC version will look like before comparing.

      Maybe you’ll come back to say how you think that they should have done like Remedy and only went single-platform…

      Remember Borderland? It probably took them a week as well.

    • robolove says:

      Wow, jti, I haven’t heard that expression before but whoever can’t wait for a turtle to cross the beach is an ass. Turtles are supposed to go slow. And who makes it their business how quickly they get from point a to b? Whoever caused that turn of phrase needs to be whipped.

  20. Pew says:

    360’s are pretty cheap nowadays. Now, I wouldn’t say that there are a lot of 360 exclusives worth getting, but for me it’s always been more of a “do I need a second 4850 when I can still run games” vs “do I want a console to play hack & slash and arcade games” thing.

    Of course, that doesn’t excuse the (temporary) 360 exclusivity for a game like Alan Wake at all, but if you really want to play all games on all platforms, it’s not as expensive as it used to be.

    Than again, a comfy couch + decent tv can be pricey if you don’t own one :)

  21. nuggnugg says:

    Von Rockstar lernen heisst, Siegen lernen….

  22. tmp says:

    So, the story is now that it took the team of 50 that many years to figure out they don’t have enough people to make two versions of the game at once, and they only realized it in the middle of the final crunch time?

    Sounds totally believeable. After all Remedy has absolutely no experience with developing titles on more than one platform, it’s only naturaly they couldn’t figure it out any earlier.

    • Gutter says:

      Nothing short of “MS bought us and we had PCs” will satisfy some.

  23. the wiseass says:

    BLA BLA BLA BLA… I’m sorry but lately it feels like we’ve talked more about “game politics and marketing” than the actual play of games. Honestly, it’s slowly starting to get tiresome.

    DRM, bad console ports, piracy, console exclusives, fading LAN support… there is so much shit going on on the PC platform, it’s almost become unbearable. Now take a look at our console gaming friends and see hoe they are getting their rears powdered left and right and tell me our gaming platform of choice is still being valued. Well maybe VALVE and a couple of indie developers still feel at home on the PC, but the rest simply does not care anymore :(

    • Hmm says:

      That’s because consoles have first party devs, massive marketing budgets and Sony/Microsoft behind them.

      Seriously, Intel and/or AMD – start funding PC EXCLUSIVES. People are quickly running out of reasons to upgrade their PCs anymore – hardware can’t be pirated, you’re losing an opportunity here.

      And no, multiplatform games with higher resolutions and DX11 you can throw right into a trash bin, none will stop playing on consoles because of that.

    • Uhm says:

      They should form some sort of alliance, for gaming. On the PC!
      And surely all members will help shape the future of gaming on the PC for the better. Proving their dedication to the platform by working closely with developers to ensure the release of top quality titles and providing guidelines so they may overcome the challenges of consumer experience issues, such as intimacy and sofas.

    • Wulf says:


      That’s actually not a bad idea. It wouldn’t hurt the graphics cards manufacturers to chip in, either.

    • bhlaab says:

      It would suck if companies like Microsoft and Epic were to somehow infiltrate and undermine this alliance, though.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “People are quickly running out of reasons to upgrade their PCs anymore – hardware can’t be pirated, you’re losing an opportunity here.”

      Then people would complain that they can’t play the game on their decrepit old rig.

    • Hmm says:

      What’s better? People saying :
      “my PC sucks, but there are some awesome exclusives which I want to play, so I’d better upgrade”
      “time to buy a console and not upgrade in years, there are no PC exclusives anyways”.

      Right now, many people are leaning towards the latter option.

  24. y3k-bug says:

    Let’s cut to it, shall we?

    The game is seen as a marquee title by Microsoft. They funded the game, etc. due to the potential to sell hardware as well as software, the game benefits MIcrosoft’s bottom line if it sells better on the 360 than if it sells on the PC. So the idea is to maximize sales on the platform with less piracy concerns and that moves many more units, the 360.

    If they see demand ramp up enough on the PC side, they’ll do a port down the line.

    But for mainstream titles, the games move more units on 360. So that platform gets exclusivity for awhile.

    • Bhazor says:

      But console makers lose money on hardware sales don’t they?

  25. Guildenstern says:

    So, will it require permanent connection to their server?

  26. Doctor Doc says:

    Makes sense. I’m not sure why they though an insult was a better way of saying this.

  27. Max says:

    Glad that they came clean, but that doesn’t excuse them from trying to bullshit PC gamers.

    PC’s can do everything that consoles can. Even if the “couch magic” argument held water, I can plug my computer into an HDTV and plug in an Xbox controller to exactly mimic gaming on a 360.

  28. Vic says:

    Seems like the same attitude as they had 4 (?) years ago at Finnish game conference where their project manager/PR person (can’t remember the name anymore I fear) basically told how consoles were way to go and it was simple math which market was worth throwing their effort at…

  29. Hmm says:

    “Small studio”? Wait a minute, someone said that already… Who was it… ah yes, EPIC “fail” GAMES!

    I’m still furious that Gears of War 2 wasn’t released on PC, they royally ruined the release of the first one with GfWLIVE, which was absolutely horrid and buggy. It still leaves much to be desired, but it’s miles better than what it used to be, but they refuse to port it.
    Bought the original, expecting the sequel to be released eventually, but nope. Feel cheated right now.

    I honestly don’t expect AW to be released on PC. The same “small studio” excuse again. And Microsoft will “talk” Remedy out of this idea, that’s what I’m afraid of.

  30. PHeMoX says:

    They are STILL seriously full of bs. They’ve started Alan Wake on PC for crying out loud and for the PC. Heck it even ran on a Quad core Windows system every time they showed the game to the public.

    Next thing we know they are going to claim this game is too 1337 for the PS3 or something and make it Xbox360 only, or is it already an ‘exclusive’?

  31. Hippo says:

    If it was any other publisher, I’d expect a PC-version 6-12 months after the 360 one. But it’s Microsoft, so I don’t. They have been doing everything humanly possibly to damage the PC gaming market over the past few years, and they’re not about to stop now.

  32. Frosty says:

    Wahey! Everyone is surprised by the fact that they’re telling porkies! At least give the Remedy chap some credit, he’s doing his best to covertly say “We had no choice, but we’ll push to have it come to the PC.”

    Subsequently I deem anyone with the last name Häkkinen is pretty cool. As this list on wikipedia proves:

    link to

  33. jti says:

    As it happens I’m quite ready to pay for late PC release and something like a little less than 50 euros. I don’t care if the game came out for Box earlier, it probably was a lot more expensive anyway AND I don’t want to pay for a good HDTV and console to buy overpriced and these days inferior games to PC ones.

  34. Tei says:

    Was “Alan Wake” a good game or something?, what type of mechanic? this video looks like a “GTA in the forest with Residen Evil gameplay”. So humm?.

    Note: I can’t comment the pro-console anti-PC Microsoft PR thingie. I don’t think can add anything interesting to say.

    • Nick says:

      Originally it looked and sounding great. Now it looks like shit.

  35. liquid says:

    Of course it will come out. But MS don’t want to make fools of themselves (oops, too late) they will bundle it with a couch.

  36. jti says:

    Could use a couch.

  37. Aubrey says:

    Console games have a lot of QA to go through before release than PC tends to. Doing PC specific work after hitting console gold master is the natural way to utilize the down time on the console version before its release.


    • Tei says:

      “Console games have a lot of QA to go through before release than PC tends to”

      Probably part of that QA testing is on the benefict of the platform: make sure there are not way to bypass the game to access the system. Like these emulators that Apple ban from the iPhone because contains a way to run programs (like did with the C64).
      Also, seems theres some pointless stupid “usability validation” that serve to force all games to work the say way. What can be a good thing (for usability) but put usability OVER all other aspects of the game, like fun, design, ideas, style, taste, intelllence..

  38. int says:

    I really don’t mind waiting another year for Alan Wake. I have waited since they announced it, what was it 04 or 05?

    I just hope we actually get the game for PC.

  39. rocketman71 says:

    BTW, does anyone know what happened to Kevin Unangst, Microsoft’s Knight in Shining Armor of PC Gaming, Lord of Games for Windows Live?. Did he commit suicide after seeing how things worked internally at Microsoft?.

    I’m worried. I haven’t heard any of the usual BS from him in one?, two? years at least.

    Does he have anything to say about Alan Wake?. Or about the fact that Microsoft’s latest PC published game was, what, Shadownrun?. Halo 2?.

    • LewieP says:

      Yeah, the last PC games they published were just vehicles to push DX10 and therefore Vista.

      They don’t really care about that as much now, so no PC games.

  40. FunkyBadger says:


  41. Tei says:

    Theres a alternate dimension where all games are made for OpenGL5 and SDL8, and run on Mac’s, PC’s, PS3 and XBox2 with minor changes (or no changes, using a wrapper). …

    • tapanister says:

      Ah yes, you mean the one where the economy isn’t in shambles and there is no civilian bombings in Iraq and Afganistan every single day?

    • Latterman says:

      Dream on commie scum!

  42. Stabby says:

    you guys just turned the satire up to 11.

  43. malkav11 says:

    I really don’t care if they delay PC versions, as long as we get something out of it that’s more than a quick and broken port. (And the DRM’s light.). What has to fucking stop is the denial that they’re going to make a PC version at all.

  44. DethDonald says:

    Even if I had a Xbox I couldn’t play this; I lack the sofa.

  45. Lavitz says:

    Okay I am sick of seeing the game industry cover this story over and over. Alan wake not coming to pc? Really who care the game seems very generic.. It will be a shooter with a flashlight and nothing more. Grantueed to suck. Avg game. Microsoft just hurting sales at least people would buy it on the pc with the Hype that game has around it but not when the game comes out a year later.. = Torrent

  46. AdrianWerner says:

    Everyone who thinks Alan Wake will come to PC is naive. There’s simply no way Microsoft will do it. Stop getting your hopes up. The last PCgame they published was almost three years ago.
    The only way it could happen is if Remedy went behind MS’ backs and published pc version through different publisher (like it happened with Jade Empire or Ninja Blade), but for that to be possible Remedy would have to own all the rights to the game, which I seriously doubt they do.

  47. smashingpunk says:

    The bottom line is sales, console sales will always be more than PC sales, period.

    Xbox-PC ports are relatively easy, both use Direct X, a 50 man team could do it in 1-3 weeks, this has been proven already. The ” we dont have the manpower” excuse is BS.

    Funny how they didnt say that piracy was an issue this time around, maybe they finally realized that piracy is growing on the x360 and dont want to publicize it anymore, Modern Warfare 2 x360 version recently hitting 1million downloads.

    Lets put together the sum of all these excuses,

    The PC will not get be getting a version of Game X (Deadspace2, Darksiders, Dante’sInferno, GeOW2, AlanWake, TFU,GTA4, RedDead, etc) because we do not have the manpower to rewrite a few lines of code for the limited target audience of intimate pirates with $4000 PCs who do not own controllers or couches to a play games that are focused on having non overly-designed features


    • AdrianWerner says:

      In case of Alan Wake it’s the other way around. The whole point of not releasing it for PC is because MS is afraid it would sell TOO well, thus cutting into 360 sales

  48. jon_hill987 says:

    They might as well save their money, no one will buy it on PC a year later. It will look shit (as it will be a year old XBox game) and it will be buggy and have GfWL as it is an XBox port.

  49. neolith says:

    I call bullshit on his comment about the team size. If that were true then why the heck start working on a PC only game and trying to make an additional 360 version in the first place, only to drop the PC version afterwards?

  50. destroy.all.monsters says:

    Even if it does come out how much do you want to wager that it will be wrapped with GFWL even if there’s no online component?