Remedy doesn't rule out Alan Wake PC

By Tom Bramwell Published 22 February, 2010

But admits it's partly Microsoft's call.

Remedy hasn't ruled out doing a PC version of Alan Wake one day, but has said that it will need to be a decision made in conjunction with Microsoft.

"We're a small studio. We're 50 people, and being a small studio it makes a lot more sense for us to focus on one platform," Remedy's Oskari Häkkinen told VG247.

"Currently we're fully focused on the Xbox version, and [as for] what the future holds, we haven't got anything to announce, and we haven't thought that far right now."

Pressed about whether it would do a PC version down the road, Häkkinen said, "that's a decision to sit down with our publisher... and see where the title goes".

Microsoft has previously dismissed a PC version of Alan Wake in the interests of "matching this specific game to the right platform", arguing that Xbox 360 provided "the most compelling way to experience Alan Wake".

"Some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen," the publisher had said.

Häkkinen questioned the logic behind that statement, describing it as "more of a preference than anything else".

"We're not going out there to say that PC gamers can't enjoy it from their own PC setup. We're certainly not saying that. We have a strong heritage in PC gaming as well," he explained, before citing the studio's small size and need to focus in order to hit its release date - something that, half a decade after the game's announcement, sounds plausible.

Check out last week's hands-on Alan Wake preview to find out more about the current state of the game, and drop in on our interview with writer Sam Lake while you're at it.

Alan Wake is due out exclusively for Xbox 360 on 21st May.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (48) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Destria #1 2 years ago

    Still sounds like a "Not going to happen" to me. I'd be surprised if Microsoft gives it the go-ahead

  • thewool #2 2 years ago

    Hope floats...

  • Negotiator #3 2 years ago

    Just buy an xbox 360 if you want to play it, simple.

  • Widge #4 2 years ago

    Woo, looks like I do get a chance to play this after all. Once all the hoohah about "look at our wonderful exclusive!" dies down it'll get slapped across.

  • kinky_mong #5 2 years ago

    It's your call Microsoft, do you want the game to be pirated to buggery and have a bunch of people whinge that it doesn't work properly on their setup?

  • jellyhead #6 2 years ago

    Don't worry Remedy, I can wait a little longer :)

  • ignatiusjreilly #7 2 years ago

    Well I am pleased of course, even if nothing has really changed, but I'm most pleased that Remedy has rebutted Microsoft's statement about PCs/couches/TV screens.

    It's those kind of statements that fuel the conspiracy theories because they are so obviously bullshit.

  • Darren #8 2 years ago

    Well I'd like to see Alan Wake appear on the PC at some point.

    At one time, I would have said that a PC version would be highly likely some six months after the 360 version has been released but with the current state of the PC games market, what with all the piracy, low sales and stupid DRM schemes from the likes of Ubi Soft spits, I'm not so sure. I get the impression these days that many developers, including those that have worked on the PC for years, would rather code games for the consoles where they are far more likely to sell them and make a profit.

  • Darren #9 2 years ago

    As for the excuse of Remedy being a small team; why don't they give the PC version to a reputable third-party to code?

  • Darren #10 2 years ago

    "Some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen," the publisher (Microsoft) had said

    Translation: We know can make far more money from the Xbox 360 version so it will remain an exclusive for now. ;)

  • Postumo #11 2 years ago

    It's piracy only a pc problem? xbox games can be pirated too, only with the risk of being banned of xbox live, and that's something that doesn't matter to everyone.

  • dingo75 #12 2 years ago

    Sucks to have to bend over for Microsoft Remedy?
    So much for sleeping with the devil!

  • persus-9 #13 2 years ago

    Hope, hope is good. I was always going to wait and see if there really wouldn't be a PC version because in my opinion a psychological thriller like Alan Wake is far more suitable for the intermacy of my PC. I'd buy this even if they made it a VirtualBoy exclusive but even if they write my a letter in blood confirming it won't be released on PC I'll still wait another year because I think some sort of protest in terms of waiting until it hits a low price point is in order after the way they've messed us PC gamers about on this one. Remember that this was one of the big games Microsoft used to sell us Vista, thanks Microsoft.

    Perhaps even better than the small sliver of hope is just hearing Remedy disagreeing with Microsoft's BS excuse that the title it isn't suitable for PC. It's good to hear one of my favourite developers having the guts to stand up for my favourite platform even if they are at the mercy of their publisher regarding what platforms they actually develope and release for.

  • RobotRocker #14 2 years ago

    Eh, I'd say once they can find an external team to lump a conversion off to, we will see it on Games For Windows around 6-8 months after it like with Gears. Wonder if Climax is busy...

  • sneetch #15 2 years ago

    I might wait for the PC release then, as will others who could get it for the Xbox. Unfortunately this means that sales will be down.

    Tick-tock Remedy.

  • alan1302 #16 2 years ago

    What a surprise - after the big delays and the sales of the PS3 increasing Microsoft realises it needs an exclusive game. The Xbox 360 does seem to have the number of exclusives as the PS3 has and it looks like Microsoft now want to grab this for their console.

    I expect that this will end up later on the PC though and it's good that Remedy are willing to stand up and speak out against their publisher.

    Are Remedy owned by Microsoft or are they just the publisher?

    Alan

  • ChthonicEcho #17 2 years ago

    They had already said this over a year ago. It isn't happening. At best, it will be released as a Vista/7 only title a year or two later.

    @alan1302

    They're the publisher, but they've invested quite a bit into this project, which means they've quite a lot of say in the matter. Microsoft was the obvious choice, as it meant they had easier access to latest technological developments on the PC. They were showing off DirectX 10 even before Vista came out.

  • ignatiusjreilly #18 2 years ago

    Just the publisher.

  • JahB #19 2 years ago

    It's piracy only a pc problem? xbox games can be pirated too, only with the risk of being banned of xbox live, and that's something that doesn't matter to everyone.

    Xbox 360 piracy rate: 3-4%
    PC piracy rate: 80-90%

    go figure.

  • sneetch #20 2 years ago

    @JahB
    Xbox 360 piracy rate: 3-4%
    PC piracy rate: 80-90%

    go figure.

    Anything to back up those figures? Or just your wild stabs in the dark?

  • JahB #21 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    World Of Goo
    [link url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/11/acrying-shame-world-of-goo-piracy-rate-near-90.ars
    ]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/...[/link]

    Crysis
    [link url=http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13818.cfm
    ]http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13...[/link]

    CoD4
    http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13940

  • ignatiusjreilly #22 2 years ago

    @JahB I don't doubt that PC piracy is much higher than Xbox piracy, but those sources don't back up your figures in the slightest :/

  • makeamazing #23 2 years ago

    @those that just say get an Xbox, The issue that i see it is that MS is console maker and the Major PC OS manufacturer, and really they shouldnt be ignoring the PC games market as that is their market as well.

    Yes i appreciate there is a major issue with piracy on PC (there is problems on the Wii and Xbox too), but you would think that someone who makes the biggest OS in the world would be able to find a way around it (hey steam works well and thats not even by MS)...

  • Cylinder #24 2 years ago

    I'd be very surprised if the piracy rate on PC was less than 80%.

    As for Alan Wake, I've waited this long, another 6-18 months for a PC release is no biggy.

  • sarcasmoidosis #25 2 years ago

    [link url=http://vgtribune.com/mw2-most-pirated-game-of-2009/
    ]http://vgtribune.com/mw2-most-pirated-ga...[/link]

    This would put MW2 360 piracy at something like 10% and something like 100% for Dirt 2...

  • Murton #26 2 years ago

    While I have to respect Remedy for speaking against their publisher in one regard I can't say I like their "true reason" any better. Focus on the 360? The PC was the lead platform for the vast majority of the project and the 360 API's are derived from DirectX anyway so the bulk of the work would have been covered already.

    I bet Remedy are regretting choosing MS as publisher now, seems to me that they would have been able to get much higher sales if they had gone with a third party publisher who is in it purely to make money rather than get caught up in Microsoft's futile attempts to outperform Sony's first party studios.

  • chiz #27 2 years ago

    @JahB
    Xbox 360 piracy rate: 3-4%
    PC piracy rate: 80-90%

    Rack up the amount of P.C's out there and 80% isn't that bad.

  • FooAtari #28 2 years ago

    "@JahB I don't doubt that PC piracy is much higher than Xbox piracy, but those sources don't back up your figures in the slightest :/"

    Agreed, don't post actual numbers JahB unless you can back those numbers up.

    Piracy is definitely an issue on the PC, a bigger issue than the 360. The problem is, no one knows, and no one has tried to prove what percentage of downloaded copies accounts for a lost sale. There will be a LOT of people downloading a game because its FREE to do so and would never have paid for it.

    Someone needs to do a proper study into piracy on the PC, which is easier said than done. But until you fully understand a problem, how do know how big it really is and how do you tackle it?

    Anyway, in the case of Alan Wake, I think this is 100% about making the game a 360 exclusive.

    Furthermore I think if the PC Games market dried up you would see a massive increase in 360 piracy, as those gamers who used the PC move to the next easiest platform to pirate for.

    Regardless of all this, there is clearly money to be made on the PC, otherwise we would not be seeing any games get released on it.
    Edited by FooAtari at 22/02/10 @ 13:49

  • kangarootoo #29 2 years ago

    @chiz

    I think the 80% is supposed to be the percentage of copies pirated, not bought. Unless there are 10 times as many gaming rig PCs (not every PC is used to play games, especially not recent AAA releases) out there as 360s, the numbers really aren't that favourable.

    This discussion risks descending into people stating opposing absolutes. Piracy DOES exist on the 360, but it is NOT anyway near the scale of piracy on the PC. Whether JahB's figures are exact or not, they are in the right ballpark. Pirating a game on a PC is trivial and common, pirating a game on a 360 is not a mainstream activity.

  • kangarootoo #30 2 years ago

    @FooAtari

    "Someone needs to do a proper study into piracy on the PC"

    Well, to be honest, they don't really. In order for us to answer the questions about piracy, and have some facts behind our discussion, a proper study would indeed be useful.....

    ...but for a company making games as a source of business revenue, such a study isn't really that important. What is far more important is what kind of return on the a development investment can be made from PC games and console games respectively.

    If a developer knows that making a PC game will make less profit per invested dollar than the same game made for a console, they pretty much know everything they need to know. How much of a factor piracy plays in this lower return rate is of mild interest only, and doesn't really influence the "do we or do we not develop for PC" decision.

  • ignatiusjreilly #31 2 years ago

    If a publisher is rolling out new and expensive new forms of DRM for PC games, you would hope they have more than a "mild interest" in how piracy affects the revenue for the platform!

    Surely they are weighing the costs of implementing a new scheme against the possible benefits that scheme would bring, and to do that you need figures? Otherwise they're just making it up as they go along, no?

    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 22/02/10 @ 14:24

  • FooAtari #32 2 years ago

    @kanga

    What is far more important is what kind of return on the a development investment can be made from PC games and console games respectively.

    If a developer knows that making a PC game will make less profit per invested dollar than the same game made for a console, they pretty much know everything they need to know

    Well in that case, surely the PC must be profitable otherwise we wouldn't see as many new games as we do. There is money to be made.
    It may be less profit per invested dollar than on console, but the profit could still be a considerable amount. You are still making money, even if it's less than on another platform.

    However I still think the question of "what percentage of downloads is a lot sale" is important. For example I'm sure the DRM in AC2 has not been cheap to implement for Ubi, but how do they know how much of a return that investment will see?

    I would be surprised if even as much as 50% of downloaded copies was a lost sale, I think 25% or less of those who downloaded a game would have bought it.

  • kangarootoo #33 2 years ago

    @FooAtari

    The range of games is much more diverse on PC. It also costs a small developer a lot less to get started on a PC development, with no requirement for specialist kit or platform submission processes. A small dev expecting a low volume of sales can't expect to make their money back so easily from a console development, but for a larger developer (such as Remedy) with a larger investment at stake, the security of a console platform is well worth the extra initial outlay.


    "It may be less profit per invested dollar than on console, but the profit could still be a considerable amount. You are still making money, even if it's less than on another platform."

    Well I don't doubt there is money to be made but seriously, what business would CHOOSE to make less money if they had any choice in the matter? "Some money" is never as good as "more money", whatever line of business you are in.

    For certain developers, making certain types of games, the PC platform may be more profitable than a console (if only because the buy in cost of working on a console isn't offset by their lower sales predictions)... but Remedy isn't one of those developers. At the AAA end of the market, console development is more profitable than PC development in MOST cases.

  • FooAtari #34 2 years ago

    @kanga

    Well I don't doubt there is money to be made but seriously, what business would CHOOSE to make less money if they had any choice in the matter? "Some money" is never as good as "more money", whatever line of business you are in.

    Why choose? They could develop for both platforms. As I understand it the development for PC and 360 is fairly similar and a relatively simple process to port between platforms.

    At the AAA end of the market, console development is more profitable than PC development in MOST cases.

    I don't disagree with this, however as I said above, at least where the 360 is concerned, why choose between them.

    "but for a larger developer (such as Remedy) with a larger investment at stake, the security of a console platform is well worth the extra initial outlay. "

    Blizzard obviously think a little differently :)
    Edited by FooAtari at 22/02/10 @ 15:48

  • JahB #35 2 years ago

    Regardless of all this, there is clearly money to be made on the PC, otherwise we would not be seeing any games get released on it.

    have you seen all the recent news stories of "we won't do a pc version", leave alone the fact that the majority of games that used to be developed for pc (especially FPS's) are now being made for consoles?

    yes, there's money to be had, but obviously not enough to warrant the ever-increasing development costs these days

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    @FooAtari

    "Why choose? They could develop for both platforms."

    But you always have to choose. Like I said, £100 invested in one area is £100 less to invest in another area. Its no good saying "lets divide our money between 2 things" if the end result is that you make less profit than if you had put all your money into one carefully chosen area.

    Choosing to develop for both platforms is choosing to divide your money. This may or may not be a good thing to do in any given situation, but my point is that "choosing" in one form or another is unavoidable.


    You are quite right that Blizzard are thinking differently, and that is a great way of putting it. They thought differently in that they operate an "online only" game, which brings inherrent security not normally available on a PC platform. They also thought differently by charging a monthly subscription AND charging for expansion packs.

    Makers of more "traditional" games are finding that the PC is a less promising platform than it used to be. Some companies are changing the sort of product they make (Blizzard) or changing the way it is delivered (Valve), but some are just changing platform. For them, the better option is to keep making the same product but in a more secure and "predictably profitable" environment.

    I'm not saying there is a right or wrong way to go about all this, I'm just saying I can understand why some developers making certain kinds of product are deciding that PC development is no longer for them.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 22/02/10 @ 16:30

  • RobotRocker #37 2 years ago

    Microsoft's futile attempts to outperform Sony's first party studios.

    Fanboyism much?

    If anything Remedy are probably happier and are just throwing out quotes to keep the PC contingent happy since it lets them focus on one platform while they go into crunch for the 360 version. Its not like they are going to put all the work they put in on the PC version on a server and shoot it into orbit. If anything, both MS and Remedy probably agreed that it would be better to focus on the more profitable version for now and then focus on the PC version once that is done. More money for Remedy, more effort in the PC version. Some people just need to learn some patience.

  • FooAtari #38 2 years ago

    I see what your saying Kanga and those are pretty fair comments. You could get pretty deep into this discussion, but investing some money in another platform may not detract from sales on the "lead" platform and gain more sales in the other platform. Although I guess that's what your referring to when saying "may or not be the right thing to do"

    Although when I referred to Blizzard, I was talking about Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, not WoW.

    @JahB

    Yes there are come games getting canceled, no argument there.

    But you also have a lot of pretty successful new games and future releases like;

    Starcraft 2
    Stalker: Call of Pripyat
    Dawn of War 2
    Half Life Episodes
    Left 4 Dead
    Dragons Age Origins
    Diablo 3

    My main issue here is that I feel that the only thing developers, publishers, share holders look at is the number of times a game is downloaded. And that alone is what they base their decisions on. While I can understand that I think the issue is little more complex.

    They are taking the simple stance of "if you are going to pirate it, we just won't release it", rather than looking into what effects piracy actually has on sales.

    I dunno, I guess I'm just frustrated at all the problems my favored platform is having at the moment. Regardless of the facts and figures and how you look at the them, the ultimate solution is for people to stop downloading and start buying. Why people can't see that is lost on me.

    Although getting off topic here, I still feel this pretty much all down to MS having another exclusive to add to the list as they are slightly lacking at the moment in comparison to the PS3

  • Xeopuppy #39 2 years ago

    Isn't the PC a Microsoft platform as well? After all they make Windows and that's what the games run through not Linux...

    Utter Shite...

  • monkeywithnoeyes #40 2 years ago

    doubtful it will happen. They were confident it would be 360 only last week.. they're only teasing a possibility of it hitting the PC now because the PC/ps3 fanboys put up such a fuss of it not hitting the pc/removing they're crys of "360 has no exclusives", "must be taken from the pc version", "i'll get the superior pc version" ect ect.

    I think MS are finally starting to be wise and keep their AAA ip's to the 360 in effert to sell consoles on the back of them..rather than allowing a 6 month wait and offering it to the pc. Same thing happened with Gears 2.. that still doesnt look like it's hitting the pc any time soon

  • UncleLou #41 2 years ago

    I think MS are finally starting to be wise and keep their AAA ip's to the 360 in effert to sell consoles on the back of them

    Just a shame they feel the need to do this by cutting down on what their (other) customers want. I won't be pushed into buying a lesser format they're trying to make artificially more attractive by reducing something else. Not a business strategy anyone should be in favour of, really, just because you're on the side of the fence that's supported at this moment.

  • Syrette #42 2 years ago

    I'm not in favour of it, but I understand it.

    Quite amazed some of you PC fanboys seem to struggle to.

  • FooAtari #43 2 years ago

    I don't fully understand it.

    I own a 360, but won't be buying Alan Wake on it. I was interested in it for the PC. They didn't gain a sale with their approach, they lost one.

    But then again, I'm probably in a minority.

    MS have said before they are still committed to PC gaming. Load of bollocks that was...

  • Syrette #44 2 years ago

    Why deny yourself a probably great game in order to silently protest against a group of businessmen who will never, ever hear your voice?

    Can't understand that. Same with the whole MW2 dedicated servers fiasco, and the L4D2 'boycott'. They're just games, enjoy them for what they are I say.

    Console gaming as you well know is HUGE business. MS would no doubt rather sell a few more 360 consoles on the back of Alan Wake being a 360 exclusive, than they would copies of Alan Wake on the PC. The former would make them more money in the long run. I'm not in favour of it but they're in the business of making money so it's up to them how they go about it really.

  • FooAtari #45 2 years ago

    Why?

    Simply because I far prefer gaming on the PC, thats about the only reason. But also because I don't think it will be the same game as the Quad-core demo we saw a couple of years ago.

    If it turns out to be a stunning game, I may well end up getting it. But TBH I don't think it will be (hence only having an 'interest' in it), and I very much doubt it will be a system seller. Time will tell there.

    As for L4D2, well I bought that. Stupid boycott that was...

    MW2. Well I didn't buy that. Mainly because Im pretty bored of CoD but also because of the lack of dedicated and third party server support. I think any decent FPS should have it, and missing such a crucial feature that I consider important is as good a reason as any not to buy a game. I have CoD 4 why bother getting what I feel is an inferior sequel. I don't feel I "missed out" on anything not buying it.
    Edited by FooAtari at 22/02/10 @ 22:52

  • SixFootHalfling #46 2 years ago

    "Some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen"

    So a game that's primarily about the atmosphere, isn't best suited for the "intimacy of the PC"?

  • mkreku #47 2 years ago

    Does it really matter if a game is pirated by 80% or 3-4%? If the game is a success and is profitable, does it matter?

    I truly believe that if Alan Wake was released on the PC, it would be profitable.

  • FooAtari #48 2 years ago

    "Does it really matter if a game is pirated by 80% or 3-4%? If the game is a success and is profitable, does it matter?

    I truly believe that if Alan Wake was released on the PC, it would be profitable. "

    That's kind of my feeling about it. I think the issue is a little more complex, but if your making money your making money.