As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
Take GTA V. It runs on my 7 year old Core2Duo setup.
Definitely not even remotely close to max settings. Yeah, you can downgrade the settings of modern games to make them look like much older games, and then they run semi-decently indeed.
Let's not exagerate.
Originally posted by adam_nox
Seems the OP is the lie. My job is supporting PCs. I build my own computer, but the last time I did a real upgrade was three years ago. Motherboard, cpu, and ram. Already had the vid card.
But even buying these three things off newegg cost me about 300 dollars. It was good then, heck still decent now, but my PS4 is better. I enjoy the controller more, and the way games are designed to use it (PC game controls can be very difficult to adapt to a gamepad).
If your 3 years old PC is not as good as a PS4, then your 3 years old PC is a pile of crap, and you aren't as good at supporting PCs or building them as you think you are.
The controller think is a matter of preferences, even though mouse+keyboard are still better for many games like FPS, but saying that an "up to date" 3 years old PC is beaten by a PS4... that's a joke... the PS4 was released 2 years ago and its hardware was "frozen" at least another couple of years before during development.
I didn't say max settings. :-)
Not on the lowest settings either though, which surprised me. I didn't even think it would run. But it does, and it does pretty smoothly too. The point is that those options exist for the PC market, which comprises a very wide range of machine setups and capabilities.
As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
Agreed. True next gen hardware really only comes around every 5 - 10 years. We have just had one such leap so everything for the next few years will just be improvements on the same theme. Expect another leap around 2020 or so. Consoles themselves are now simply under-powered PC's and when developers claim that they need console sales what they really mean is standardised code so that it doesn't cost as much to develop. Sorry devs but PC will be around for a long time and will continue to push the envelope, try to keep up.
As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
Ugh, there it is. That awful and untrue myth that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming! I built my PC for $700 and something, it plays all games maxed out (you do not need a $1000 PC to play current games in high settings... You might if consoles weren't holding games back... But yeah... *Cough*). I will end up saving way more in the long run because you can find PC games for cheaper than $60 on various sites like Green Man Gaming.
Also, to add to this, building a PC ends up being cheaper in the long run because you are not buying a whole entire brand new PC every time you make an upgrade. Usually it may be a video card that is maybe $300 (I buy stuff on sale, and look out for the best deals on Amazon, so I've learned to get good parts on the cheap, so please don't quote me and tell me my prices are lies, it's not my fault if people choose to not take advantage of sales and are too lazy to hunt for the best prices, and therefore end up paying some ridiculous price like $2000-$3000 for their gaming PC).
To OP: Your premise is false. PC games don't make a lot more money than consoles. They have just caught up and are now pretty much on par with console market.
If you don't think that these are correct please provide a CREDIBLE source that provides alternative revenue figures. I really don't care about speculations and opinions, this comes down to hard data.
The stuff I could find was hardware specific. In that the PC Hardware market, including peripherals, upgrades, etc. was roughly double the size of the console hardware market. Which makes a lot of sense. PCs are in general more expensive, and they are upgradable. Very little was coming up for game sales though. Your link is a projection of 2014. So I wonder with the release of the XB1 and PS4 how things actually panned out? Did PC game sales exceed Console game sales?
Even so, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split. Why would any developer who is capable of developing for both markets ignore one of them when they don't have to?
As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
Ugh, there it is. That awful and untrue myth that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming! I built my PC for $700 and something, it plays all games maxed out (you do not need a $1000 PC to play current games in high settings... You might if consoles weren't holding games back... But yeah... *Cough*). I will end up saving way more in the long run because you can find PC games for cheaper than $60 on various sites like Green Man Gaming.
Also, to add to this, building a PC ends up being cheaper in the long run because you are not buying a whole entire brand new PC every time you make an upgrade. Usually it may be a video card that is maybe $300 (I buy stuff on sale, and look out for the best deals on Amazon, so I've learned to get good parts on the cheap, so please don't quote me and tell me my prices are lies, it's not my fault if people choose to not take advantage of sales and are too lazy to hunt for the best prices, and therefore end up paying some ridiculous price like $2000-$3000 for their gaming PC).
You can find console games on the cheap as well, on top of that a console never has to be upgraded, you also don't need to buy a new one, not when they come out anyway, it's always best to wait until their library is fleshed out. I'm not a console gamer, the only game I touch on Playstation is Red Dead Redemption as it's the only way to play it. I still don't see how it's not cheaper to just go with a console, if it fits your gaming needs. They don't for me, as I mainly play RTS and RPG's like Divinity, Wasteland2 etc.. Most of which aren't put on consoles.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Gravarg I can't stand consoles, they're so outdated. My Titan X graphics card, by itself, has more power than all 3 consoles combined lol. Granted it costs as much as all 3, but you get what you pay for
No you don't get what you paid for. You paid a premium price for your your Titan X which is just a little more powerful than a 970 and get's beat both in price and performance by dual 970's or a 980Ti.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
Ugh, there it is. That awful and untrue myth that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming! I built my PC for $700 and something, it plays all games maxed out (you do not need a $1000 PC to play current games in high settings... You might if consoles weren't holding games back... But yeah... *Cough*). I will end up saving way more in the long run because you can find PC games for cheaper than $60 on various sites like Green Man Gaming.
Also, to add to this, building a PC ends up being cheaper in the long run because you are not buying a whole entire brand new PC every time you make an upgrade. Usually it may be a video card that is maybe $300 (I buy stuff on sale, and look out for the best deals on Amazon, so I've learned to get good parts on the cheap, so please don't quote me and tell me my prices are lies, it's not my fault if people choose to not take advantage of sales and are too lazy to hunt for the best prices, and therefore end up paying some ridiculous price like $2000-$3000 for their gaming PC).
You can find console games on the cheap as well, on top of that a console never has to be upgraded, you also don't need to buy a new one, not when they come out anyway, it's always best to wait until their library is fleshed out. I'm not a console gamer, the only game I touch on Playstation is Red Dead Redemption as it's the only way to play it. I still don't see how it's not cheaper to just go with a console, if it fits your gaming needs. They don't for me, as I mainly play RTS and RPG's like Divinity, Wasteland2 etc.. Most of which aren't put on consoles.
No, a console never has to be upgraded. You just have to buy a brand new one every time there is a significant jump in graphics/hardware (and even then the consoles lag behind for years, I mean jeeze, when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were at the end of their life cycle, PCs were so superior to them that it was ridiculous).
I on the other hand don't have to buy a brand new PC every time...
No, a console never has to be upgraded. You just have to buy a brand new one every time there is a significant jump in graphics (and even then the consoles lag behind for years, I mean jeeze, when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were at the end of their life cycle, PCs were so superior to them that it was ridiculous).
What does being a graphics whore have to do with anything outside of your own mind?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
My kids and their friends grew up playing video games on consoles. Now that they are grown up working adults, they have all pretty much bought expensive gaming rigs.
Kinda like my generation back in the 70's when it came to stereo's
I would say that your kids and their friends are in the minority on that one. I feel pretty confident in saying that most people who have been playing since the launch of console gaming will never buy high end gaming rigs.
Thats funny
The launch of console gaming was back about 1972, and consoles used to be 100% of the home video game market. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they have been losing market share ever since.
I don't see what was confusing about what I said. It's already been stated many times on here and in other places that it's a smaller percentage of gamer's even PC only gamer's that put tons of money into high end gaming rigs. Where did I mention market anything? That was my response to your post which was stated like this was the case for the large majority of people who have played consoles from a young age until their adulthood when in fact it is only true for a much smaller percentage of those people/gamer's.
Wow....
You sure can extrapolate quite a bit of information from a sentence or two. Who said anything about majorities or minorities?
Gee I wonder who it is that buys the millions of high end video cards that Nvidia and AMD seem to produce every year?
And yes... just like your $1000 wood for golf, It is the minority of gamers that will spend $1000 on a video card.
As for the PC master race elitists... PC Hardware are like Call of Duty, fanboys get a new one every year to "stay on top". If devs cant keep up with how fast PC is evolving as a massive cash grab with hardware then dont cry and swallow your console ports.
Yes PC hardware is superior, but all these PC hardware companies need to slow down. They are not evolving PC anymore, they are just cashing in every year. Dont complain if you feel the need to waste money every year on hardware when there are no games high end enough to justify the hardware.
Most people use their PC for much more than just gaming... just saying.
And as I said, a 3 years old PC is still better than any console, no need to upgrade every year. Don't confuse a few "obsessed nerds" with the majority.
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
Ugh, there it is. That awful and untrue myth that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming! I built my PC for $700 and something, it plays all games maxed out (you do not need a $1000 PC to play current games in high settings... You might if consoles weren't holding games back... But yeah... *Cough*). I will end up saving way more in the long run because you can find PC games for cheaper than $60 on various sites like Green Man Gaming.
Also, to add to this, building a PC ends up being cheaper in the long run because you are not buying a whole entire brand new PC every time you make an upgrade. Usually it may be a video card that is maybe $300 (I buy stuff on sale, and look out for the best deals on Amazon, so I've learned to get good parts on the cheap, so please don't quote me and tell me my prices are lies, it's not my fault if people choose to not take advantage of sales and are too lazy to hunt for the best prices, and therefore end up paying some ridiculous price like $2000-$3000 for their gaming PC).
You can find console games on the cheap as well, on top of that a console never has to be upgraded, you also don't need to buy a new one, not when they come out anyway, it's always best to wait until their library is fleshed out. I'm not a console gamer, the only game I touch on Playstation is Red Dead Redemption as it's the only way to play it. I still don't see how it's not cheaper to just go with a console, if it fits your gaming needs. They don't for me, as I mainly play RTS and RPG's like Divinity, Wasteland2 etc.. Most of which aren't put on consoles.
Console games are rarely as cheap as PC games, but it does happen once in a full moon cycle. I always refer people to http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide when people doubt why a PC is a better choice to make. It's never been cheaper to make a PC and play games at high graphics with great or acceptable framerate.
One important thing is that the library doesn't reset, unlike consoles which has to wait a whole generation to be worth it. And even then, most of the games being released this generation is remasters so far.
Console gamers are not the common enemy. Console gaming is.
No, a console never has to be upgraded. You just have to buy a brand new one every time there is a significant jump in graphics (and even then the consoles lag behind for years, I mean jeeze, when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were at the end of their life cycle, PCs were so superior to them that it was ridiculous).
What does being a graphics whore have to do with anything outside of your own mind?
I editted to add hardware, but basically this is what I see: New console comes out, PC is at the time better than said console, but consoles still manage. Over the next years PC continues to improve in leaps and bounds, while the console remains stagnant. Eventually it comes to the point where consoles are holding PC gaming back to the point where new consoles have to be released because even console players begin to grumble and notice that their consoles aren't nearly as good as a gaming PC is. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The saddest part is just how stagnant console's technology really is... Consoles really did not improve a whole lot in their newest iteration, and I see them being in somewhat of a troubling situation because unlike with the previous consoles which were able to be improved upon over time as devs learned to squeeze all the power out of them that they possibly could (this was due to them not knowing their full capabilities when they first released), the Xbox 1's and PS4's capabilities are pretty much known so you won't see any huge improvements for them with future games. Basically this means that consoles will be holding back PC gaming for as long as these versions of the consoles are out (it's actually already began, not even 2 years into the newest console's lifecycles).
Can't mod on a console, can't update anything for better performance, you can't make music with Cubase, write an essay with Word, make a website with multiple different programs, surf the web in a convenient and fast manner, make your own games, make your own movies....list goes on...
Anything a console can do, a PC does better...it's not even close...
consoles have the added benefit of being one universal hardware platform (per console). this makes optimizing games much easier. this allows the developers to spend their time polishing the games performance. problem with PC is that it'll work great on one computer, but on another it'll work terribly. thus creating inconsistency in your product. i dont blame devs for focusing on consoles.
I'm going to go with logic here, and give most people the benefit of the doubt of being intelligent enough to realize that they can do more with a PC than with a console. Why do you think there is so much marketing involved with the Xbox and PS consoles? Weird how there is none for the PC, isn't it? Huh. Think maybe that's because it sells so well that it doesn't need marketing? That's my assumption.
The bottom line is you really should take consoles vs. sales numbers with a grain of salt, especially Skyrims'. I'm sorry, but I legitimately believe that the sales number for Skyrim on the PC were at least 40% of total sales. Probably gonna get told to take my tin foil hat off, but it's my honest opinion that console sales are often padded because console games are more expensive, and so Sony and Microsoft use marketing and PR to push their consoles as much as they possibly can. Like I said, there is no PR for the PC. It doesn't need it.
The performance advantage isn't that strong. When a game like Crysis releases it's not like everyone runs out and upgrades. The average PC gamer doesn't upgrade all that often. Read something a while back that this creates a rhythm where consoles have the actual horsepower advantage for the first couple years, then the average PC meets and surpasses it until the next console generation begins the cycle anew.
That advantage is further diminished because companies have to optimize around the computers people do have. A game isn't going to spend 80% of its efforts on an ultra-high graphics setting that only 1% of players can use. They're going to spend most of their efforts trying to make it run and look nice on most players' actual computers. (This doesn't always turn out great though, as usually it's a trial-and-error sort of thing where you just push the graphics as far as you can, then back off on it until you find the happy middle ground between quality and performance.)
Config variety is another factor hamstringing PC development. When I worked at Microsoft Games we literally had a giant room filled with wall-to-wall PCs and every single one was a different config to be tested.
So yes, there are some very intelligent people working on PC games, and they're extremely familiar with the challenges distinct to PC development.
You stated that you thought advertising didn't happen for PC games because it doesn't need advertising. Advertising strategy works the exact opposite of that.
Here's a simplification of how advertising works:
You've created a game. You earn $60 per sale.
If you spend $100 on ads and it causes 5 users to buy the product, your Cost Per Install (CPI) is $20.
Do you want to spend $20 to earn $60? Yes. Yes, you want to do that every single time. You want to spend $20 million to earn $60 million if you can. Until eventually, due to various factors, CPI will rise above $60 and it'll stop being profitable.
The people in charge of advertising generally aren't idiots, so they're not going to make the mistake of saying "You know, I think our game has enough players. Let's just stop advertising."
The PC games vs. console games sales I posted weren't Skyrim's.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That lie is that without consoles they wouldn't make the money required to make the game to the best of their abilities. The funny part about all of this is that developers seem to forget to mention a crucial factor to players, and that is sale numbers. Guess what? The PC market dominates sales, while the consoles don't even make a dent compared to what PC sales make, and this is with people torrenting games!
huh. Well, since you used Pete Hines ...
According to this, your statement is a crock of rich creamery butter:
I will say that you need to "logically" put together an argument and point to all the numbers that prove your point that PC sales were at least 40% of total sales. Because otherwise you are just guessing and wanting things to be the way you want them to be.
edit 2: at least GlacianNex found info that supports the pc is doing much better provided no one can prove the estimates in those figures/graphs "wrong" as they are from 2011.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's a chicken or egg argument. Most AAA studios/publishers are unwilling to spend tens of millions on a PC only game. So, sure, consoles at some point hold back PC games later in their lives, but those games likely would never be made in the first place due to the tremendous budgets needed today.
I will say that you need to "logically" put together an argument and point to all the numbers that prove your point that PC sales were at least 40% of total sales. Because otherwise you are just guessing and wanting things to be the way you want them to be.
edit 2: at least GlacianNex found info that supports the pc is doing much better provided no one can prove the estimates in those figures/graphs "wrong" as they are from 2011.
Following sources from Skyrim on wikipedia you end up here at VGChartz.
Full text of article:
"2011 is fast becoming the year games debuted at incredible numbers, as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim sells over 3.4 million copies at retail (not including digital sales) in its first 2 days on sale.
Up over 600% on Oblivion's modest 490k staggered opening across PS3 and X360, Skyrim will manage to outsell Oblivion as a whole in a matter of weeks. 59% of units were sold on the X360 (over 2 million copies) and 27% on the PS3, with 14% on PC.
2.5 million of the total sold in Americas, with the remaining 950,000 units in EMEAA.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has managed to beat out Gears of War 3 and Fifa Soccer 12 for first week sales, and is on par with Battlfield 3, but with only 2 days sales it's selling at a faster rate. Only Modern Warfare 3 will be ahead of Skyrim, which, for an RPG, is incredible.."
So the 14% PC sales was only on day 2 for physical copies only. Certainly his claim still seems wrong, but it's not provably wrong (not unless we find better data on the topic.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To OP: Your premise is false. PC games don't make a lot more money than consoles. They have just caught up and are now pretty much on par with console market.
If you don't think that these are correct please provide a CREDIBLE source that provides alternative revenue figures. I really don't care about speculations and opinions, this comes down to hard data.
The stuff I could find was hardware specific. In that the PC Hardware market, including peripherals, upgrades, etc. was roughly double the size of the console hardware market. Which makes a lot of sense. PCs are in general more expensive, and they are upgradable. Very little was coming up for game sales though. Your link is a projection of 2014. So I wonder with the release of the XB1 and PS4 how things actually panned out? Did PC game sales exceed Console game sales?
Even so, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split. Why would any developer who is capable of developing for both markets ignore one of them when they don't have to?
The article was written back in 2011. Given the source (PC oriented site) I would expect them to give the most positive outlook for PC. I was not able to find another other data the compares console game sales vs PC game sales. Usually companies sell consoles at a loss and then recoup their money on game sales. Also game studios make no money from PC sales (directly), so it is not the best comparison.
As far as ignoring certain parts of demographics, business people are not retards they will go after a dollar if there was one. The fact that they don't can mean a lot of things, most likely explanation they have access to data that we don't and that data shows that it is not profitable.
Originally posted by SlothnChunk It's a chicken or egg argument. Most AAA studios/publishers are unwilling to spend tens of millions on a PC only game. So, sure, consoles at some point hold back PC games later in their lives, but those games likely would never be made in the first place due to the tremendous budgets needed today.
It's not a chicken or egg argument....it's just a jackass argument altogether.
Well, think about it this way: A game for a console is released as is, and there is no doing anything to the base game, unless the developers decide to update the game themselves. A PC game, you can mod, edit, improve it graphically, and just generally add more content to it than you could with a console game. If you were going to buy a game and you had a PC and a console, and the game was available for both, which system would you buy it for? I think most would say PC. Just right there PC has one up on consoles.
I think the real issue is also that a lot of people seem to believe that building a PC that can run everything maxed out is ridiculously expensive. I built mine for $700 and something, and it can run everything maxed out and most likely will until the next PS and Xbox comes out. Thing is even though $700 is more expensive than a console, I still save so much on PC games because I can get them for way cheaper on other sites. This makes it so in the long run PC gaming is way cheaper because I'm not paying $60 every time for a console game.
Also, Star Citizen is anti-console because it wouldn't even be able to do the things it wants to do gameplay wise if they tried to also make the game for consoles... So, blame that on the crappy capabilities of the consoles, not the developers of Star Citizen being "anti-console."
Mods are always held up as some glorious thing when it comes to PC gaming, but you (and quite a few people) seriously underestimate the amount of people who could care less about mods. Mods don't even come in to play when I'm thinking about purchasing a game. Most people don't buy a game because it looks like a great platform for modders to turn into something else, they buy it because they're interested in what the game itself offers. Mods can be a nice bonus for those who care, but they're hardly a reason to pick up a game.
I bought both Skyrim and GTA5 on my 360 and don't regret it. I'm one of those "weird" people who think the games are just fine as they are. More recently I bought The Crew for my PS4 when I could have easily bought it on PC. Why, you might ask? I prefer to play games on the PS4, the graphics are just fine, the frame rates are just fine and I hate M+K, always have. There are lot of people out there just like me.
Yes, you can get games much cheaper for PC, and it's exactly that reason that AAA developers say they need consoles. They get higher sales from consoles and they get a higher percentage of those sales because the prices don't drop as fast. It's not a lie, it's just common sense.
As far as Star Citizen is concerned, I find it funny that you've drank their "it couldn't be on consoles" kool-aid in a thread you started about devs lying. There's nothing happening in SC that a console couldn't handle, No Man's Sky, while not nearly as graphical, proves that. RSI are just pandering to their PC master race audience to get more and more funding.
To be honest, without mods for Skyrim I would have most likely grown sick of that game within 50 hours instead of the over 200 hours I have invested into it. Some people are different I guess, but in my opinion Skyrim as a standalone game with no mods was nothing to write home about. Horribly bland NPCs with the same monotone voice that had me wondering if everyone in the TES universe was suddenly in on some secret "we're going to kill ourselves in a super bloody painful way" pact of sorts, and that they were just really bummed about it or something, a pretty boring and non-memorable main questline (actually... I really don't remember it now that I think about it), and terribly bland, non-diverse dungeons, locations, and mobs. Not to mention the bugs and terrible NPC AI.
Comments
I have said this many times, well said!
No signature, I don't have a pen
i know im specifically talking about gaming when it comes to PC. You dont need a 4 digit priced PC unless you do gaming or editing IMO.
I agree, a 3 year old PC is better, but a 3 year old PC also cost more. So its still the same thing. A PC for gaming is more expensive than a console. That is my point. It doesnt make any sense to buy a gaming PC for 1k if all im going to play are games that were developed for a 400 dollar console. I would just buy my console and a cheap computer for daily use for the same price.
I didn't say max settings. :-)
Not on the lowest settings either though, which surprised me. I didn't even think it would run. But it does, and it does pretty smoothly too. The point is that those options exist for the PC market, which comprises a very wide range of machine setups and capabilities.
Agreed. True next gen hardware really only comes around every 5 - 10 years. We have just had one such leap so everything for the next few years will just be improvements on the same theme. Expect another leap around 2020 or so. Consoles themselves are now simply under-powered PC's and when developers claim that they need console sales what they really mean is standardised code so that it doesn't cost as much to develop. Sorry devs but PC will be around for a long time and will continue to push the envelope, try to keep up.
Ugh, there it is. That awful and untrue myth that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming! I built my PC for $700 and something, it plays all games maxed out (you do not need a $1000 PC to play current games in high settings... You might if consoles weren't holding games back... But yeah... *Cough*). I will end up saving way more in the long run because you can find PC games for cheaper than $60 on various sites like Green Man Gaming.
Also, to add to this, building a PC ends up being cheaper in the long run because you are not buying a whole entire brand new PC every time you make an upgrade. Usually it may be a video card that is maybe $300 (I buy stuff on sale, and look out for the best deals on Amazon, so I've learned to get good parts on the cheap, so please don't quote me and tell me my prices are lies, it's not my fault if people choose to not take advantage of sales and are too lazy to hunt for the best prices, and therefore end up paying some ridiculous price like $2000-$3000 for their gaming PC).
Smile
The stuff I could find was hardware specific. In that the PC Hardware market, including peripherals, upgrades, etc. was roughly double the size of the console hardware market. Which makes a lot of sense. PCs are in general more expensive, and they are upgradable. Very little was coming up for game sales though. Your link is a projection of 2014. So I wonder with the release of the XB1 and PS4 how things actually panned out? Did PC game sales exceed Console game sales?
Even so, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split. Why would any developer who is capable of developing for both markets ignore one of them when they don't have to?
You can find console games on the cheap as well, on top of that a console never has to be upgraded, you also don't need to buy a new one, not when they come out anyway, it's always best to wait until their library is fleshed out. I'm not a console gamer, the only game I touch on Playstation is Red Dead Redemption as it's the only way to play it. I still don't see how it's not cheaper to just go with a console, if it fits your gaming needs. They don't for me, as I mainly play RTS and RPG's like Divinity, Wasteland2 etc.. Most of which aren't put on consoles.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No you don't get what you paid for. You paid a premium price for your your Titan X which is just a little more powerful than a 970 and get's beat both in price and performance by dual 970's or a 980Ti.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
No, a console never has to be upgraded. You just have to buy a brand new one every time there is a significant jump in graphics/hardware (and even then the consoles lag behind for years, I mean jeeze, when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were at the end of their life cycle, PCs were so superior to them that it was ridiculous).
I on the other hand don't have to buy a brand new PC every time...
Smile
What does being a graphics whore have to do with anything outside of your own mind?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wow....
You sure can extrapolate quite a bit of information from a sentence or two. Who said anything about majorities or minorities?
Gee I wonder who it is that buys the millions of high end video cards that Nvidia and AMD seem to produce every year?
And yes... just like your $1000 wood for golf, It is the minority of gamers that will spend $1000 on a video card.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Console games are rarely as cheap as PC games, but it does happen once in a full moon cycle. I always refer people to http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide when people doubt why a PC is a better choice to make. It's never been cheaper to make a PC and play games at high graphics with great or acceptable framerate.
One important thing is that the library doesn't reset, unlike consoles which has to wait a whole generation to be worth it. And even then, most of the games being released this generation is remasters so far.
Console gamers are not the common enemy. Console gaming is.
I editted to add hardware, but basically this is what I see: New console comes out, PC is at the time better than said console, but consoles still manage. Over the next years PC continues to improve in leaps and bounds, while the console remains stagnant. Eventually it comes to the point where consoles are holding PC gaming back to the point where new consoles have to be released because even console players begin to grumble and notice that their consoles aren't nearly as good as a gaming PC is. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The saddest part is just how stagnant console's technology really is... Consoles really did not improve a whole lot in their newest iteration, and I see them being in somewhat of a troubling situation because unlike with the previous consoles which were able to be improved upon over time as devs learned to squeeze all the power out of them that they possibly could (this was due to them not knowing their full capabilities when they first released), the Xbox 1's and PS4's capabilities are pretty much known so you won't see any huge improvements for them with future games. Basically this means that consoles will be holding back PC gaming for as long as these versions of the consoles are out (it's actually already began, not even 2 years into the newest console's lifecycles).
Smile
PC destroys console gaming in every way.
Can't mod on a console, can't update anything for better performance, you can't make music with Cubase, write an essay with Word, make a website with multiple different programs, surf the web in a convenient and fast manner, make your own games, make your own movies....list goes on...
Anything a console can do, a PC does better...it's not even close...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
huh. Well, since you used Pete Hines ...
According to this, your statement is a crock of rich creamery butter:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
edit: I see someone else beat me to it.
I will say that you need to "logically" put together an argument and point to all the numbers that prove your point that PC sales were at least 40% of total sales. Because otherwise you are just guessing and wanting things to be the way you want them to be.
edit 2: at least GlacianNex found info that supports the pc is doing much better provided no one can prove the estimates in those figures/graphs "wrong" as they are from 2011.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Following sources from Skyrim on wikipedia you end up here at VGChartz.
Full text of article:
"2011 is fast becoming the year games debuted at incredible numbers, as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim sells over 3.4 million copies at retail (not including digital sales) in its first 2 days on sale.
Up over 600% on Oblivion's modest 490k staggered opening across PS3 and X360, Skyrim will manage to outsell Oblivion as a whole in a matter of weeks. 59% of units were sold on the X360 (over 2 million copies) and 27% on the PS3, with 14% on PC.
2.5 million of the total sold in Americas, with the remaining 950,000 units in EMEAA.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has managed to beat out Gears of War 3 and Fifa Soccer 12 for first week sales, and is on par with Battlfield 3, but with only 2 days sales it's selling at a faster rate. Only Modern Warfare 3 will be ahead of Skyrim, which, for an RPG, is incredible.."
So the 14% PC sales was only on day 2 for physical copies only. Certainly his claim still seems wrong, but it's not provably wrong (not unless we find better data on the topic.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The article was written back in 2011. Given the source (PC oriented site) I would expect them to give the most positive outlook for PC. I was not able to find another other data the compares console game sales vs PC game sales. Usually companies sell consoles at a loss and then recoup their money on game sales. Also game studios make no money from PC sales (directly), so it is not the best comparison.
As far as ignoring certain parts of demographics, business people are not retards they will go after a dollar if there was one. The fact that they don't can mean a lot of things, most likely explanation they have access to data that we don't and that data shows that it is not profitable.
It's not a chicken or egg argument....it's just a jackass argument altogether.
To be honest, without mods for Skyrim I would have most likely grown sick of that game within 50 hours instead of the over 200 hours I have invested into it. Some people are different I guess, but in my opinion Skyrim as a standalone game with no mods was nothing to write home about. Horribly bland NPCs with the same monotone voice that had me wondering if everyone in the TES universe was suddenly in on some secret "we're going to kill ourselves in a super bloody painful way" pact of sorts, and that they were just really bummed about it or something, a pretty boring and non-memorable main questline (actually... I really don't remember it now that I think about it), and terribly bland, non-diverse dungeons, locations, and mobs. Not to mention the bugs and terrible NPC AI.
Smile