Analyst: PC Has Surpassed Console in Terms of Revenue

[grigjd3]

Silly analyst.

Consoles have always been a luxury, even if a console is cheap.
PCs, not game PCs (though the difference is only a $100+ graphics card), have been necessity for many people for over a decade.

The only thing that's changed is that PC gaming has become less of a hassle over time and consoles have become more of a hassle.

Whats the hassle on the consoles thats not on pc?

An hour to download a 30 MB update from Sony's servers.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I wasn't exactly happy to ehar this, I like both, I don't like seeing another fail and get congratulated for doing so, but some people here will most likely act smug about it regardless.

The guy also said that somehow in the past PC's weren't a necessity yet consoles were and now it's reversed?, except PC's have always been needed, not for gaming but for every day important needs like work and actually managing other things like dams, power plants, other important shit etc, the guy lost his credibility with me when he stated that, that's never been true at all.

I've seen this pointless war going on for such a long time that it bears a striking resemblance to the Cybertronian wars of the Transformers, the endless war that was so pointless that it kept on going and in the end ravaged Cybertron to a point where neither side won and had to leave the planet.

The Intro scene to WFC seems pretty reminiscent of the PC vs consoles wars the past few decades, even with the two quotes from either side:

Optimus "Our tragic war has ravaged Cybertron".
Megatron "It is a necessary war, to return us to glory!"

Optimus "One shall stand".
Megatron "One shall fall!".

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

It seems reasonable to compare one of the most successful pc games to one of the most successful console games.

But I am positive now none of these reports are right. Look how many conflicting stats are being sighted for a single game let alone the whole industry.

thats stupid, it would be like, if someone told you 2+2=4 and another person told you 2+2=5, and you decided to believe none of them because the information is conflicting

LoL is not the only PC game and GTAV is not the only console game, the comparison accomplishes absolutely nothing

it would be like, if you tried to compare the overall physical fitness of both Canada and the USA by doing a competition between each country's best athlete

except not, because its been proven time and time again that stea sales increase the revenue of games

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/174587/Steam_sales_How_deep_discounts_really_affect_your_games.php


some people dont have enough cash to buy all their games at 60 bucks each, some people might be interested in a game but not enough to pay full price, steam sales are able to get these eople on board, its gotten to the point where on average, 26% of the games people buy, are never played

It takes more than just being on a sale to do well. Apparently you also need to be a spotlight sale. Some indies don't drop prices at all unless they will be in a spotlight because they don't sell any extra.

And this high percent of games never played is a troubling statistic. That money is pure waste. I don't look forward to steam sales. I skip them because I know that I probably never play the games I buy.

well make up your mind, first you say you fear PC might now be able to sustain enough sales to keep the AAA market afloat, now you complain because people buy too many games on PC?

A) developers get a 70% ct out of eact digital sale, this compared to the usual 20% cut they get from physical copies, DD can support the sales of any kind of video game much better than physical

B) are seriously worried for an industry that has shot itself in the foot over and over again and is now going for their own head? are you sorry for an industry that throws away money on miserable engine upgrades, hollywood actors, etc, and atleast in the case of tomb raider, takes an entire year to make a profit on a well known and beloved brand? while the developers of rogue legacy, a 2D indie game in which they worked on for 4 years made a profit within the first hour

and not only they hate themselves, they hate you, the customers more, pre-order bonuses, season passes, online passes, DLC on the disk, unfinished games sold at full price and being advertized as complete, the butchering of well entablished franchises in order to "appeal to a larger audience", the anualization of franchises, etc

and lets not forget all the beloved developers sacrificed to the all powerful AAA god, origin, free radical, pandemic, westwood, bullfrog, factor 5, etc

to me its quite obvious the AAA industry isnt lead by people who know and understand video games, but a bunch of suits with extreme tunnel vision, they dont care about their devs, they dont care about the artistic merit of video games, they dont care about their franchises, they dont care about the confort of their customers

they are willing to sacrifice all of those things for money

a) I doubt thats right. Devs get 20% of the physical copy sales because the deals they have with the publisher. I HIGHLY doubt their percentage changes any when that same game is sold on steam. That contract is still in place.

Steam gives self publishing devs 70% sure. But CoD, Bioshock, etc.... are not self published. And devs cannot foot the bill to make those games themselves. Its a whole different thing for 3 people to make a game in 4 years during their time off than it is for 200 people to work on it full time for 3 years.

B) I'm not worried about the industry, those companies will simply switch to whatever is profitable. I'm worried about the GAMES. I love AAA games. They are almost the only games I care about at all. There are so few indies or f2p games I like that if AAA games go away I'll probably stop buying games.

A) we dont know what kind of contract publishers have with devs when it comes to digital sales, but its a fact manufactring and distribution make up most of the costs of physical distribution

http://kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys

now i dont see the devs in that chart so i assume their cut comes from the publisher cut, but as you can see, they get less than than a half of the price of the game

B) you should play more games, PC or not the AAA model isnt sustainable as games become more and more expensive to make, the worst part is that the publisher try to place these costs on us, the customers, like i said, with shit like DLC day oe, online passes, etc

thats the real problem, not PC, those anti-customers policies have already killed many devs and driven a few publishers into the dust, if AAA stay the way they are they WILL disappear and it will be entirely their fault


try playing more games, seriously AAA isnt the only thing that exist and in my opinion, nowadays is far from the best, may i suggest FTL? as well as some mark of the ninja, rogue legacy, antichamber, legend of grimrock and runner 2, torchlight II and castle crashers are also very enjoyable with coop

 

[Phlogiston]

I'm not sure on the comparison between GTA5 and LoL... The highest grossing multiplat (4 different consoles) game ever vs one years earnings from a f2p PC title... It's basically impossible to ever even guess the magnitude of PC sales because Valve don't have to publish their numbers for suits in charge. The fact it's even being weighed up against the console market as a whole should be meaningful enough shouldn't it?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I wasn't exactly happy to ehar this, I like both, I don't like seeing another fail and get congratulated for doing so, but some people here will most likely act smug about it regardless.

The guy also said that somehow in the past PC's weren't a necessity yet consoles were and now it's reversed?, except PC's have always been needed, not for gaming but for every day important needs like work and actually managing other things like dams, power plants, other important shit etc, the guy lost his credibility with me when he stated that, that's never been true at all.

You are confusing mainframe computers actually used by governments/corporations to do the jobs you describe and the networked PCs that are used as clients/terminals of the mainframe.

Home PCs have long been a luxury and did not become ubiquitous until the mid to late '00s, on the other hand DVD players (which the PS2 and XBox fall into) quickly became a semi-necessity like VCRs and the most common DVD players were the PS2 followed by the XBox.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I don't know in terms of revenue, but obviously if someone games on console and pc (unless affected by outside factors like friends and whatnot) then a game is going to be a superior version on the pc and probably cheaper, so why wouldn't the market follow that? Consoles are trying harder to emulate PC's (let's face it, they are locked down mini pc's at this point in a nutshell.) so they are losing an uphill battle. They just need to stick with their strengths of plug n play, local co-op/multiplayer functions, and strong first and second party titles. (Sony has my eye on this regard, but that probably won't come to fruition until 2015ish)

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I know steam makes a lot of money. But I want to know is whether pc gamers actually PAY enough money to support AAA development?

being the sucker I am I got Titanfall on launch...there were plenty of other players..others paying full a lunch day price

if people reeeeaally want a game theres a good chance they'll buy it on launch (hype aside games being good helps too) not EVERY gamer waits for a steam sale..in fact maybe steams sales help because they pay [i/]something[/i] for a game they might not have otherwise bought at all (but thats just pure speculation on my part)

Gotta +1 this, there are a few games right off the top of my head I wouldn't have gotten if not for getting them in a steam sale (Crusader kings II, Mount and blade: Warband, x:com enemy unknown) and after getting addicted to them, the developer went straight to the top of dev's that I loved and I bought tons of expansions/DLC for those games afterwards because of it.


that being said, there are plenty of steam games sitting in my library for "a rainy day" that I got because they were such a bloody good deal and just haven't had the willpower to play them while I'm still hooked on other games. Still, they are there, and I got them for less than 5-10 bucks, so doesn't bug me.

 

[Phlogiston]

You are confusing mainframe computers actually used by governments/corporations to do the jobs you describe and the networked PCs that are used as clients/terminals of the mainframe.

Home PCs have long been a luxury and did not become ubiquitous until the mid to late '00s, on the other hand DVD players (which the PS2 and XBox fall into) quickly became a semi-necessity like VCRs and the most common DVD players were the PS2 followed by the XBox.

peak DVD player sales 2006 - 141 million
Peak PS2 sales 2007 - 7million
Couldn't find a figure for peak XBox sales but I doubt if between the two they even made up 10% of the DVD player market

Edit: basically the £150-250 consoles didn't really influence the already established £20-30 DVD player market of the time, interestingly though the PS3 had a huge impact on the HD DVD vs Bluray format war and was a genuine contender as one of the best launch Bluray players due to the ability to update its firmware over the internet and competitive pricing with the other launch players

 

[Vault101]

Gotta +1 this, there are a few games right off the top of my head I wouldn't have gotten if not for getting them in a steam sale (Crusader kings II, Mount and blade: Warband, x:com enemy unknown) and after getting addicted to them, the developer went straight to the top of dev's that I loved and I bought tons of expansions/DLC for those games afterwards because of it.

I think it taps into some faulty logic in dealing with money

its like [i/]well know I don't really want this game but its $5 so how can I NOT try it?[/i] and more often than not it ends up unplayed along with 50 other $5 games...

but sometimes you do find a gem..

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Gotta +1 this, there are a few games right off the top of my head I wouldn't have gotten if not for getting them in a steam sale (Crusader kings II, Mount and blade: Warband, x:com enemy unknown) and after getting addicted to them, the developer went straight to the top of dev's that I loved and I bought tons of expansions/DLC for those games afterwards because of it.

I think it taps into some faulty logic in dealing with money

its like [i/]well know I don't really want this game but its $5 so how can I NOT try it?[/i] and more often than not it ends up unplayed along with 50 other $5 games...

but sometimes you do find a gem..

I do limit my steam purchases and only get things I've heard amazing things about and researched myself, I'm not THAT much of an impulse buyer(thankfully), but risking 5 bucks is exponentially easier than risking 40-50 bucks.

While I do agree it is some...awkward logic, I would rather have twenty 5 dollar games and love only two or three of them than pay 40-50 bucks a piece for two games and love both of them for sure. my library is fucking stacked (digital games I have a whopping total of 353 and I have 13 physical games on my shelf.) and it doesn't look like it'll be slowing down this year with the 5-6 games off the top of my head I'll be wanting.

Hell I got mars: War logs for I think 7 bucks and even with how rough it was I highly enjoyed it, and I think the dev appreciated getting some of my money rather than none at all, which is hard to do when you have in store purchases rather than digital, as a key is a few kb of data and a physical games has to account for shipping/retail/shelf space/etc... so they can't just sell things that cheap on a whim.

 

[ToastyMozart]

When EVER has a console been a (gaming) necessity!?

Necessity might be a bit of an overstatement, but in the early days of 3D gaming, PCs were a NIGHTMARE to keep. There were a ton of different video card manufacturers, the internet was still in it's infancy, so any problems you had, you had to sort out yourself, hardware compatibility was a crapshoot, "need to upgrade every 6 months" was accurate, games would crash with no error codes given, and it was VASTLY more expensive than just picking up an N64 or PS1.

 

[Raziel]

thats stupid, it would be like, if someone told you 2+2=4 and another person told you 2+2=5, and you decided to believe none of them because the information is conflicting

No its not like that at all. You know what 2+2 is. Its like asking 5 people what the population is and all of them say a different number you have no reason to think any of them actually know.

well make up your mind, first you say you fear PC might now be able to sustain enough sales to keep the AAA market afloat, now you complain because people buy too many games on PC?

Those are 2 separate things. There is no connection to wondering if AAA titles will make a couple hundred million on the pc in the first month and people buying a bunch of $2 games they'll never play.

Steam should be worried about how many games they sell that people never play. Sooner or later more and more people are going to look at their steam library and realize they have dozens of games they'll never ever play and stop buying them.

B) you should play more games, PC or not the AAA model isnt sustainable as games become more and more expensive to make, the worst part is that the publisher try to place these costs on us, the customers, like i said, with shit like DLC day oe, online passes, etc

thats the real problem, not PC, those anti-customers policies have already killed many devs and driven a few publishers into the dust, if AAA stay the way they are they WILL disappear and it will be entirely their fault


try playing more games, seriously AAA isnt the only thing that exist and in my opinion, nowadays is far from the best, may i suggest FTL? as well as some mark of the ninja, rogue legacy, antichamber, legend of grimrock and runner 2, torchlight II and castle crashers are also very enjoyable with coop

B) I've played plenty of other games. I'm just not impressed with them.

I want huge games with state of the art graphics. Not something that seems like it could have been played on a snes. I want things that actually use all this new hardware I pay for.

I find the things AAA games do way less offensive then the crap these alternative games are pulling. F2P, social games etc... Make crappy little mini game and then exploit a bunch of fools into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to keep playing it. And at the end that person doesn't even own any of it. The dev simply turns it all off or nerf everything you've bought to get you to spend even more for whatever new shit they just made. At least AAA games spend real time and money making their games.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

No its not like that at all. You know what 2+2 is. Its like asking 5 people what the population is and all of them say a different number you have no reason to think any of them actually know.

so if you didnt know how much 2+2 was, you wouldnt believe em?

Those are 2 separate things. There is no connection to wondering if AAA titles will make a couple hundred million on the pc in the first month and people buying a bunch of $2 games they'll never play.

i bought fallout new vegas for 2.5 bucks and i have yet to play it, and im very tempted to buy sleeping dogs for 4 bucks on steam, god knows if ill play it or not

arent those sales as well? and many, if the evidence ive put foward is any indication, but just to further prove my point, heres a little investigation ars techinca made, is not all that accurate of course, since real sales numbers are only known by devs, publishers and Valve, but after contacting and comparing their results with the results provided by some devs, they have found no case of a really mayor deviation between their sales numbers and the real sales numbers

top 100 best seling games on steam, counting F2P

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-addressing-your-questions-and-concerns/2/

as you can see many "AAA" games have sold very well on PC, in many cases more than on consoles, XCOM sold significantly more than on consoles, Just Cause 2 too (probably in part thanks to the mutliplayer mod, one of the many ways mods help both players and developers)

there are differences of course, it seems PC gamers like call of duty significantly less than console players, tough they seem to appreciate super meat boy far more than xbox owners ever did, etc

Steam should be worried about how many games they sell that people never play. Sooner or later more and more people are going to look at their steam library and realize they have dozens of games they'll never ever play and stop buying them.

steam is a store, dont you mean Valve?, the company that owns that store?

also has that ever happened? in the 10 years steam has existed? has everyone with a huge backlog collectively looked at it said "thats enough games"?, heres the thing, games dont stop comming, specially on PC, so people will keep wanting new stuff, and people sometimes simply enjoy the thrill of catching a good sale regardless of the fact they might just go back to playing TF2 or Skyrim or Civ 5

and isnt Sony doing something similar? giving constant, unlimited rentals to everybody who uses PS+? i have yet to hear many complains from Playstation users there as well

B) I've played plenty of other games. I'm just not impressed with them.

I want huge games with state of the art graphics. Not something that seems like it could have been played on a snes. I want things that actually use all this new hardware I pay for.

I find the things AAA games do way less offensive then the crap these alternative games are pulling. F2P, social games etc... Make crappy little mini game and then exploit a bunch of fools into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to keep playing it. And at the end that person doesn't even own any of it. The dev simply turns it all off or nerf everything you've bought to get you to spend even more for whatever new shit they just made. At least AAA games spend real time and money making their games.

playing a game for the graphics is like watching porn for its story

also what about planetside the AAA F2P MMO shooter SOE made? what about H1Z1 the F2P MMO zombie survival game SOE is making? (god all those acronyms)

explain how indie games are worse than AAA? explain how playing a game for free and then paying for microtransactions is worse than paying 60 bucks for a game and then STILL pay for microtransactions? remember Dead Space 3? Ryse? Forza 5? Gran Turismo 6? and you better not even think they are going to stop, if they didnt stop with the DLC whoring, they will not stop with the microtransactions, unless the entire thing falls down which is my point


you might like AAA but its becoming more and more clear the system is unsustainable, like living in a house made of chocolate, awesome, until the whole thing melts down and falls on your head


also indies can have good graphics as well, case and point, star citizen

also none of the games i mentioned to you had microtransactions, or was F2P, or look like theyd run on an SNES, so you have no reason not to try em

btw exploitive F2P models are more common in mobile games and social games, that kind of stuff is mostly absent from normal PC games


captcha: neckbeard. NO U

 

[Raziel]

top 100 best seling games on steam, counting F2P

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-addressing-your-questions-and-concerns/2/

as you can see many "AAA" games have sold very well on PC, in many cases more than on consoles, XCOM sold significantly more than on consoles, Just Cause 2 too (probably in part thanks to the mutliplayer mod, one of the many ways mods help both players and developers)

there are differences of course, it seems PC gamers like call of duty significantly less than console players, tough they seem to appreciate super meat boy far more than xbox owners ever did, etc

There are no sales numbers there about how many copies sold on consoles. And since that list is a year and half after the release of xcom there is no way to judge how much money it actually made. If a million of those sales came once the game dropped to $20 or less thats not a very profitable game. Though xcom probably cost a lot less to make given the graphics and game type.

also has that ever happened? in the 10 years steam has existed? has everyone with a huge backlog collectively looked at it said "thats enough games"?, heres the thing, games dont stop comming, specially on PC, so people will keep wanting new stuff, and people sometimes simply enjoy the thrill of catching a good sale regardless of the fact they might just go back to playing TF2 or Skyrim or Civ 5

It never bothers you looking at all those game you own and are never going to play? As you said new stuff comes out all the time. New games that are just going to make those old games look and play even worse in comparison. I love shadow of the colossus. But its a dated game. Even if the graphics don't bother you there is no getting past how awkward the controls are compared to what is done now. I look at all the games in my steam library and I realize I'll never ever play them and get annoyed I bothered to buy them. Thats why I avoid steam now, I don't want to poor any more money down the drain.

playing a game for the graphics is like watching porn for its story

also what about planetside the AAA F2P MMO shooter SOE made? what about H1Z1 the F2P MMO zombie survival game SOE is making? (god all those acronyms)

explain how indie games are worse than AAA? explain how playing a game for free and then paying for microtransactions is worse than paying 60 bucks for a game and then STILL pay for microtransactions? remember Dead Space 3? Ryse? Forza 5? Gran Turismo 6? and you better not even think they are going to stop, if they didnt stop with the DLC whoring, they will not stop with the microtransactions, unless the entire thing falls down which is my point


you might like AAA but its becoming more and more clear the system is unsustainable, like living in a house made of chocolate, awesome, until the whole thing melts down and falls on your head


also indies can have good graphics as well, case and point, star citizen

also none of the games i mentioned to you had microtransactions, or was F2P, or look like theyd run on an SNES, so you have no reason not to try em

btw exploitive F2P models are more common in mobile games and social games, that kind of stuff is mostly absent from normal PC games

I find it odd when a pc gamer dismisses graphics. The first thing most pc gamers mention in a debate about console vs pc is how much better the games look on pc.

And no caring about graphics is not a waste. A good game with great graphics is better than a good game with crappy graphics. I am not saying graphic s are the only important thing but part of what makes something like uncharted such a fantastic game is how beautiful the world is. If graphics don't matter why does everyone buy new tvs, phones, tablets, monitors, etc...

What about planetside, h1z1 and the other game? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I don't play any of those AAA games with micro transactions. Yes doing that is quite appalling. Almost as bad as making you pay $60 for the game + a monthly subscription + micro transactions + selling the expansions separately. Companies don't behave any better on the pc and almost all the crap AAA pull is stuff that pc games put up with so they decided they could get away with it on the consoles.

What do you consider normal pc games? When people talk about pc games to me I think mostly of mobas and mmos. Those are filled with microtransactions.

Is star citizen out? All I've ever seen for it is some cg trailers. I've never seen any gameplay.

I've tried several of those games, even beaten ftl. and looked at the others. I just don't care about them. They are games I might play for an hour or a day and then never touch again.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

You are confusing mainframe computers actually used by governments/corporations to do the jobs you describe and the networked PCs that are used as clients/terminals of the mainframe.

Home PCs have long been a luxury and did not become ubiquitous until the mid to late '00s, on the other hand DVD players (which the PS2 and XBox fall into) quickly became a semi-necessity like VCRs and the most common DVD players were the PS2 followed by the XBox.

peak DVD player sales 2006 - 141 million
Peak PS2 sales 2007 - 7million
Couldn't find a figure for peak XBox sales but I doubt if between the two they even made up 10% of the DVD player market

Edit: basically the £150-250 consoles didn't really influence the already established £20-30 DVD player market of the time, interestingly though the PS3 had a huge impact on the HD DVD vs Bluray format war and was a genuine contender as one of the best launch Bluray players due to the ability to update its firmware over the internet and competitive pricing with the other launch players

When there are over 1 thousand models of DVD player and 1 series is roughly 5% of the market it is still one of the most common. You also have to consider the price of a DVD when the PS2 was originally released: the cheap versions where roughly $100 dollars with the more standard versions being around $200. In comparison, a PS2 cost $299 when first released.

 

[Vivi22]

"The big difference is that consoles are now the luxury item and PCs are the necessity. Just a few years ago the reverse was true.

This statement makes absolutely zero sense. How bad an analyst does one have to be to believe that consoles were ever a necessity, or that PC's have been nothing more than a luxury item even in the last ten years (being generous)?

 

[NiPah]

Huh, that was an interesting read, now I'm going to go back and play tales of xillia. Afterwords I'm going to go back and play some starcraft on my PC, then to top it off I'll play some bastian on my iphone. Life is too short to give a shit about console vs. PC wars, but it sure it fun to watch people who actually care about it make posts, thank god I have my phone andor PC to read such things.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

There are no sales numbers there about how many copies sold on consoles. And since that list is a year and half after the release of xcom there is no way to judge how much money it actually made. If a million of those sales came once the game dropped to $20 or less thats not a very profitable game. Though xcom probably cost a lot less to make given the graphics and game type.

im using VGChartz numbers for comparison, not the most reliable surce, but it think it should do

again you are forgetting digital sales make much more money than physical i already explained this to you, with physical the publisher gets less than 50% from a game sale, with digital they get 70% and there almost no limit on how low a publisher can sell their games, ive seen games being sold for less than a dollar on steam

It never bothers you looking at all those game you own and are never going to play? As you said new stuff comes out all the time. New games that are just going to make those old games look and play even worse in comparison. I love shadow of the colossus. But its a dated game. Even if the graphics don't bother you there is no getting past how awkward the controls are compared to what is done now. I look at all the games in my steam library and I realize I'll never ever play them and get annoyed I bothered to buy them. Thats why I avoid steam now, I don't want to poor any more money down the drain.

not really, the games i end up not playing i usually got super cheap or in a humble bundle, and i might end up playing em eventually

also i heavily disagree regarding Shaow of the Colossus

I find it odd when a pc gamer dismisses graphics. The first thing most pc gamers mention in a debate about console vs pc is how much better the games look on pc.

And no caring about graphics is not a waste. A good game with great graphics is better than a good game with crappy graphics. I am not saying graphic s are the only important thing but part of what makes something like uncharted such a fantastic game is how beautiful the world is. If graphics don't matter why does everyone buy new tvs, phones, tablets, monitors, etc...

What about planetside, h1z1 and the other game? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I don't play any of those AAA games with micro transactions. Yes doing that is quite appalling. Almost as bad as making you pay $60 for the game + a monthly subscription + micro transactions + selling the expansions separately. Companies don't behave any better on the pc and almost all the crap AAA pull is stuff that pc games put up with so they decided they could get away with it on the consoles.

What do you consider normal pc games? When people talk about pc games to me I think mostly of mobas and mmos. Those are filled with microtransactions.

Is star citizen out? All I've ever seen for it is some cg trailers. I've never seen any gameplay.

I've tried several of those games, even beaten ftl. and looked at the others. I just don't care about them. They are games I might play for an hour or a day and then never touch again.

why shouldnt i dismiss graphics? almost all my favorite games are old enough, their graphics no longer look all that great or were never great to begin with, and btw Shadow of the Colossus is my second favorite game of all time, you see why i disagree with you?

as you ca see in the top 100 most sold games on steam, there are many games with subpar graphics in there, like terraria and FTL, not to mention, Minecraft, one of the best sellng games ever, simply does not look good

my point was that both planetside and H1Z1 are F2P and are AAA games, so AAA devs arent above making F2P games, quite the contrary, it seems they are some of the most interested on exploiting what once was an exciting and new market full of posibilities

saying PC is only for MMOs and MOBAs is like saying Consoles are only for Call of Duty

second, MOBAs and many MMOs are usualy free to play with microtransactions, which yes is almost always better than 60 bucks with microtransactions

star citizen gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TWQFSzQyeM

im sorry to burst your bubble, but very soon you will not have an option, every mayor AAA release will have microtransactions, DS3 backlast didnt stop Sony and Microsoft from adding microtransactions to their games, and the backlast of all of those didnt stop EA from yet again adding microtransations to plant vs zombies garden warfare


your taste in games really depresses me, but well, the thing is, one way or another AAA is going away, or atleast changing significantly because most devs cant deal with the costs assotiated with the development of those games, and those who can often rely on extremely anti-customers practices to get their money back

 

[The Lunatic]

This really isn't that surprising after how awful the previous and current generation has been for consumers.