- Mar 1, 2014
You say that when PC is lacking in quite a few niches itself. What you're saying is anecdotal simply put.Strazdas said:Not entirely. Im saying that consoles have less games overall and thus there is less to choose from, which leads to less people finding "just that one game fitting them perfectly" and thus a single titles sales are higher as more people chose it over the competitors, seeing as the competitors have less to offer wheras there is more diversity on PC games and more people can find their niche, so a game being a big title (AAA) does not automatically increase its chances of being sold that much.
To put it more simply - more choices leads to move spread out spending.
I hope you're not suggesting we should times ten the physical sales of PC games to get the "real amount" as that would be ridiculous. Additionally that article reads oddly...from what is being said it seems they are counting free to play titles downloads as "sales" which just renders their 92% figure utterly pointless (additionally online only titles further crack its credibility as they would be skewing the figures).Strazdas said:according to This article Digital market on PC has been around 92 percent last year.
Not that its credible to start without access to the actual numbers that make up that claim. Why would PC gamer quote news and not provide the source, and explain how exactly the conclusion is reached. Blog posts put more effort than that.
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo is what I see normally referred to as the big three. Being main event talents I think they should keep the name while the guys lower on the card find their own (not that I'm belittling your mentioned three, they are perfectly serviceable heels, though admittedly outclassed by the big three even in that department) that can slip in and out of the main event and mid card.Strazdas said:When big three are named it usually refers to the three largest publishers that is EA, Ubisoft and the acti-blizzard.
You may think dropping something you've invested in is quick, easy, and good...it isn't. Take the WWE network, its not doing as hot as they'd like, yet they would be mad to go "well we had a crack, screw it we're shutting it down". They clearly believe they can recover and considering EA is doing perfectly fine on it's end I'm sure they'll manage.Strazdas said:I dont know the data of how much people in charge of said companies know economics, but lets assume they know basics because they aren bacnrupt yet. that does not stop them from using economically worse models from time to time for biased reasons. for example Uplay was an economic disaster. it did not stop piracy in the slightest (pirates even hacked into and stole the server files to emulate it at one point), it scared legitimate fans away (after Uplay blocked my AC2 from playing i did not buy a Ubisoft game for years, and know of others who didnt either) and overally gave them the reputation of awful publisher (remmeber, Ubisoft used to actually be a loved brand back in 2007 or so). and yet they continue going forward with it. Knowing economics and always choosing best monetary path isnt always the same thing.
Oh, and as far as making less per costumer being profitable you need to look no further than console prices. they lower them to the point of selling at a loss to get larger amount of costumers to later sell games to. heck, pretty much every sale on consoles proves that.
Buying a console is different to buying a game (for most people anyway).
I'm unsure why you keep raising this minor quibble up so many times. You improve the software you are by proxy getting more out of the hardware.NuclearKangaroo said:...
you DO know how software works right?
theres a big difference, for instance, between calling a function 100 times and calling a function only 10
im a programmer myself, ive had instances in which ive made my software much faster without having to upgrade my hardware