Assassin's Creed Unity Runs at 900p Resolution to "Avoid All the Debates" - Updated

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
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.
You say that when PC is lacking in quite a few niches itself. What you're saying is anecdotal simply put.

Strazdas said:
according to This article Digital market on PC has been around 92 percent last year.
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).
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.

Strazdas said:
When big three are named it usually refers to the three largest publishers that is EA, Ubisoft and the acti-blizzard.
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:
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.
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.

Buying a console is different to buying a game (for most people anyway).

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
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

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
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
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.
oh ok

i got what you mean wrong because you werent expressing yourself properly, but yes, when you optimize something you get more out of the hardware
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
You say that when PC is lacking in quite a few niches itself. What you're saying is anecdotal simply put.
so not even the fact that PC has more games is anecdotical to you wen it does not fit you.

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).
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.
If you only count physical sales, and physical sales only account for 8% then yes counting 10 times would make sense. however it does not in this case as the data also includes digital-only games that skew the statistics upwards.

Online-only titles are not skewing statistics. they exists both on PC and on consoles. there are also plenty of boxed online-only titles (eve online, Elder scrolls online, ect).

im sorry i didnt knew i was writing a schientific thesis in this forum post, so sorry i didnt put more effort than a blogger for a forum reply

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.
those are the big three when it comes to console manufacturers, meanwhile we were talking about games profitability so it makes sense to talk about publishers. though i cain understand you confusing the two and im sorry for not bieng more clear.

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.

Buying a console is different to buying a game (for most people anyway).
Its not quick nor easy. however if it is actively hurting your profitability economic sense dictats that you should. hence why i said that companies does not always do what is economically best for them.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Strazdas said:
so not even the fact that PC has more games is anecdotical to you wen it does not fit you.
The number isn't an anecdote, your tale of PC gamers being wise while console gamers are apparently suckers based simply on your opinion however is. What evidence do you have? Diversity according to your previous post.
Where is the JRPGs? Fighters? Tactics games?

The fact you fail to see is not everyone has some huge global level radar. PC gamers being somehow better because of the existence of a million and one indie games that most don't care about is absurd.

Strazdas said:
If you only count physical sales, and physical sales only account for 8% then yes counting 10 times would make sense. however it does not in this case as the data also includes digital-only games that skew the statistics upwards.

Online-only titles are not skewing statistics. they exists both on PC and on consoles. there are also plenty of boxed online-only titles (eve online, Elder scrolls online, ect).

im sorry i didnt knew i was writing a schientific thesis in this forum post, so sorry i didnt put more effort than a blogger for a forum reply
Except you can't do that. By what you're saying if Modern War Battles IV sold 100,000 physical copies, than the total number would be around 1,000,000 copies. However the data is using digital only titles, and even more jarring free games with no specifications given. They could be counting facebook games in addition to the likes of Hearthstone for all we can derive from that article. Are they counting tablets as PCs? Who knows its not said.

Them existing on console isn't relevant, we're talking PC. Mostly irrelevant as that isn't the biggest fault in what was stated.

I made it quite clear considering I addressed "PC gamer" in that. Yes I would expect more effort than a blogger when they are reporting a story.
There is no source provided (they mention the name of a company yes but sourcing is more than that, any chump can namedrop X said Y without providing evidence), explanation, figures (outside the obvious click bait 92%), or anything of any actual worth.

Long story short the data as currently provided isn't credible.

Strazdas said:
Its not quick nor easy. however if it is actively hurting your profitability economic sense dictats that you should. hence why i said that companies does not always do what is economically best for them.
There are many factors in these things. Its not as simple as them announcing they are dropping it tomorrow and than skipping into the sunset. Though something tells me this is a theme with this whole "well if this happened than X" type of comments.
People who say such things do not see the Lions they'll be locking themselves in with.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
The number isn't an anecdote, your tale of PC gamers being wise while console gamers are apparently suckers based simply on your opinion however is. What evidence do you have? Diversity according to your previous post.
Where is the JRPGs? Fighters? Tactics games?
It has nothing to do with being a sucker or wise. when you have less to choose from you are more likely to choose a certain object than if you had more to choose from. thus a single title would get more sales comparing to platform where there is more titles to compete, however if we were to group sales of the platform that has more available titles into smaller number the per-title sales would be much more telling. that is, its unfair to comapre a single game between platforms and much more fair to compare total sales of platforms or even better sales per Players/titles.

Except you can't do that. By what you're saying if Modern War Battles IV sold 100,000 physical copies, than the total number would be around 1,000,000 copies. However the data is using digital only titles, and even more jarring free games with no specifications given. They could be counting facebook games in addition to the likes of Hearthstone for all we can derive from that article. Are they counting tablets as PCs? Who knows its not said.
so you just repeated what i said that you cant just count 10 times based on this data. however unless your implying that digital only titles consists of majority, thats still leaves a lot odf digital sales not being counted for PC.

I made it quite clear considering I addressed "PC gamer" in that. Yes I would expect more effort than a blogger when they are reporting a story.
sorry, im not the OP, not reporting a story nor am i a journalist.

There are many factors in these things. Its not as simple as them announcing they are dropping it tomorrow and than skipping into the sunset. Though something tells me this is a theme with this whole "well if this happened than X" type of comments.
People who say such things do not see the Lions they'll be locking themselves in with.
so you would disagree that if Ubisoft were to drop Uplay it would sell more titles, if only on the account of people who cant be online would also be able to buy the games? do remmeber that Uplay does NOT stop piracy in any way, so its not increasing sales at all.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Strazdas said:
It has nothing to do with being a sucker or wise. when you have less to choose from you are more likely to choose a certain object than if you had more to choose from. thus a single title would get more sales comparing to platform where there is more titles to compete, however if we were to group sales of the platform that has more available titles into smaller number the per-title sales would be much more telling. that is, its unfair to comapre a single game between platforms and much more fair to compare total sales of platforms or even better sales per Players/titles.
Such remarks are often masked, and I'm not even fully sure what the purpose of the rest of that is. You'd think the gaping hole driving your point would be a more pressing concern for you to address.

Strazdas said:
so you just repeated what i said that you cant just count 10 times based on this data. however unless your implying that digital only titles consists of majority, thats still leaves a lot odf digital sales not being counted for PC.
If they are including digital only titles, free to play titles, and perhaps even facebook titles for all we know into those figures then they are worthless. Not once have you attempted to fix the numerous weakpoints in your link.

Strazdas said:
sorry, im not the OP, not reporting a story nor am i a journalist.
You doing this on purpose now? I'm referring to PCgamer which is the site reporting the news you linked.
This combined with the above tells me you perhaps read the title of that link, but not the rest of it in any serious manner.

Strazdas said:
so you would disagree that if Ubisoft were to drop Uplay it would sell more titles, if only on the account of people who cant be online would also be able to buy the games? do remmeber that Uplay does NOT stop piracy in any way, so its not increasing sales at all.
Origin suffered and continues to still receive the hate from certain individuals (heck many won't remember but so did Steam)...oh well. You refuse to see a bigger picture.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Such remarks are often masked, and I'm not even fully sure what the purpose of the rest of that is. You'd think the gaping hole driving your point would be a more pressing concern for you to address.
maybe im getting tired today but i got no idea what you just said.

If they are including digital only titles, free to play titles, and perhaps even facebook titles for all we know into those figures then they are worthless. Not once have you attempted to fix the numerous weakpoints in your link.
How about NPD numbers of earnings surpassing that of physical [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-22-npd-group-USD3-45-billion-spent-on-games-in-q3-2013] then?

And yes, why shouldnt you count facebook titles. they are games even if you dont like them, and people do play them.

Origin suffered and continues to still receive the hate from certain individuals (heck many won't remember but so did Steam)...oh well. You refuse to see a bigger picture.
The difference between Origin and Uplay is that Origin actually listens to complains and act upon it. They fixed thier downlaod servers. they fixed their costumert support. they have better offline functionality than Steam and their authorization is handled much easier. they also have better policies (like the refund policy) than Steam. Yes, some individuals hate them and many hated steam too. The problem is that Uplay is older than Origin and in all its time its done nothing to adress the problems with it while Origin did. Steam also did, but they did that years ago since they had the benefit of being much older. Steam at launch was shit, Origin at launch was shit. Uplay at launch was shit. the difference is that Uplay is the only one that didnt improve.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Strazdas said:
maybe im getting tired today but i got no idea what you just said.
Which is essentially what I said so you responded to me saying "I don't know what you're talking about", with "I don't know what you're talking about".

Strazdas said:
How about NPD numbers of earnings surpassing that of physical then?

And yes, why shouldnt you count facebook titles. they are games even if you dont like them, and people do play them.
Because as I keep saying it renders your 92% figure meaningless. You don't have concrete evidence so you can only estimate, you use this 92% for that purpose.

Facebook games being common and having huge amounts of downloads would skew the numbers towards digital "sales", along with conventional free to play, and digital titles. With all those huge mistakes we can at least surmise the digital sales of PC games don't make up 92% of sales...heck with that many comedy of errors the real percentage is much lower.
I'd be surprised if the likes of COD sold a high percentage of their games physically on PC.

You see a number, I see the meanings and make ups of that number.

Strazdas said:
The difference between Origin and Uplay is that Origin actually listens to complains and act upon it. They fixed thier downlaod servers. they fixed their costumert support. they have better offline functionality than Steam and their authorization is handled much easier. they also have better policies (like the refund policy) than Steam. Yes, some individuals hate them and many hated steam too. The problem is that Uplay is older than Origin and in all its time its done nothing to adress the problems with it while Origin did. Steam also did, but they did that years ago since they had the benefit of being much older. Steam at launch was shit, Origin at launch was shit. Uplay at launch was shit. the difference is that Uplay is the only one that didnt improve.
Except what is important is has it lost them money? You've claimed it has...but I've yet to see your compelling evidence.
 

pilar

New member
Jul 7, 2014
59
0
0
Strazdas said:
pilar said:
Oh, look, a poorly pixelated flame effect from 2003 painted purple. certainly proves your point.

pilar said:
They have delayed WatchDoge claiming its solely to optimize the game further, what it actually was was hiding the options to make the game look better that were already present and toglable. WatchDoge is a perfect example of Lazy, even maliciuos developing. it wasnt developers stuck with inflexible deadlines, they delayed the deadline.

Erm no, if hardware is capable and you are developing the same thing the developement will be easier because you have to code less efficiently since the more capable hardware will still run it. the jump from 512mb of ram to 5gb of ram (has 8, 3 reserved for OS) should have allwoed them to put a lot into RAM. Some developers like Shadow Of Mordor ones utilized it. others just used it for dumping all inefficiency and still failed to even avoid texture popins.

[HEADING=1]Just Deal with it[/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]1080p60, it's happening...[/HEADING]​
The PC's most popular games are 3+ years old and the newest AAA titles can't hold a candle to Second Son.

Games are taking longer to make and are more expensive to produce -- this is widely known, I don't know how you missed it. And again, you're wrong: the truth about Watch Dogs is all over the net, I don't have time to educate on you something so prevalent.

And because Steam's sales provide such small benefit to the publisher, there's no need to optimize for high-end GPU, or even mid-range video cards.
Results?
A 760 can't even run Shadow of Mordor or Evil Within at High Settings 1080p60 -- and these are the newest releases! Actually a 750TI, which is far more powerful than a Playstation, gets you right up there with a PS4 in these games -- Digital Foundry.

As usual, there's what you're saying, and then there's real world results.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Because as I keep saying it renders your 92% figure meaningless. You don't have concrete evidence so you can only estimate, you use this 92% for that purpose.

Facebook games being common and having huge amounts of downloads would skew the numbers towards digital "sales", along with conventional free to play, and digital titles. With all those huge mistakes we can at least surmise the digital sales of PC games don't make up 92% of sales...heck with that many comedy of errors the real percentage is much lower.
I'd be surprised if the likes of COD sold a high percentage of their games physically on PC.

You see a number, I see the meanings and make ups of that number.
I never claimed it was meaninful. in fact in one response to you i even stated that it isnt. and yet you claim i said it was.

Facebook games are still games. "free to play games" tends to earn more per person than paid titles, they just do it in microtransactions, so it most definatelly makes money.

Except what is important is has it lost them money? You've claimed it has...but I've yet to see your compelling evidence.
lowering sales and forcing people that cant or dont want to deal with U[small]dont[/small]play into piracy certainly makes them earn less profit from selling less games. No, i dont have a dataset ready to show you as i dont work in Ubisofts accounting nor can i track every pirate out there.

pilar said:
[
[HEADING=1]Just Deal with it[/HEADING]
Oi! i can do you one better:



Now, do you remmeber when this phrase was used? thats right, when MS was fucking all its costumers up the rectum. Quite ironic id say.

The PC's most popular games are 3+ years old and the newest AAA titles can't hold a candle to Second Son.
Funny, how those 3+ year old games are more impressive than your "second son". in both graphics and gameplay.

Games are taking longer to make and are more expensive to produce -- this is widely known, I don't know how you missed it.
Funny how wrong that is. games actually take LESS to make now. in fact the most expensive game developing times were arcade cabinet days. the majority of budget for games go to marketing nowadays. the developement itself? can make perfectly viable "wonder" with 20 million budget (see: Metro, Witcher)

And again, you're wrong: the truth about Watch Dogs is all over the net, I don't have time to educate on you something so prevalent.
yes, the truth about Watch Dogs is out there. the truth of Ubisoft getting caught gimping the PC version.

And because Steam's sales provide such small benefit to the publisher, there's no need to optimize for high-end GPU, or even mid-range video cards.
Uh, what? Steam sales means publishers earn more in that shrt sale time period than it does for months outside of sales. i wouldnt say thats a small benefit. they wouldnt try the same tactic on consoles if they didnt see it work. And what the hell does sales got to do with high-end GPUs?

Results?
A 760 can't even run Shadow of Mordor or Evil Within at High Settings 1080p60
Hold your horses here. i got a 760gtx. I have not overclocked it. I can run Shadow of Mordor.

As usual, there's what you're saying, and then there's real world results.
Could you please stop spreading FUD around?
 

pilar

New member
Jul 7, 2014
59
0
0
Strazdas said:
Rozalia1 said:
Because as I keep saying it renders your 92% figure meaningless. You don't have concrete evidence so you can only estimate, you use this 92% for that purpose.

Facebook games being common and having huge amounts of downloads would skew the numbers towards digital "sales", along with conventional free to play, and digital titles. With all those huge mistakes we can at least surmise the digital sales of PC games don't make up 92% of sales...heck with that many comedy of errors the real percentage is much lower.
I'd be surprised if the likes of COD sold a high percentage of their games physically on PC.

You see a number, I see the meanings and make ups of that number.
I never claimed it was meaninful. in fact in one response to you i even stated that it isnt. and yet you claim i said it was.

Facebook games are still games. "free to play games" tends to earn more per person than paid titles, they just do it in microtransactions, so it most definatelly makes money.

Except what is important is has it lost them money? You've claimed it has...but I've yet to see your compelling evidence.
lowering sales and forcing people that cant or dont want to deal with U[small]dont[/small]play into piracy certainly makes them earn less profit from selling less games. No, i dont have a dataset ready to show you as i dont work in Ubisofts accounting nor can i track every pirate out there.

pilar said:
[
[HEADING=1]Just Deal with it[/HEADING]
Oi! i can do you one better:



Now, do you remmeber when this phrase was used? thats right, when MS was fucking all its costumers up the rectum. Quite ironic id say.

The PC's most popular games are 3+ years old and the newest AAA titles can't hold a candle to Second Son.
Funny, how those 3+ year old games are more impressive than your "second son". in both graphics and gameplay.

Games are taking longer to make and are more expensive to produce -- this is widely known, I don't know how you missed it.
Funny how wrong that is. games actually take LESS to make now. in fact the most expensive game developing times were arcade cabinet days. the majority of budget for games go to marketing nowadays. the developement itself? can make perfectly viable "wonder" with 20 million budget (see: Metro, Witcher)

And again, you're wrong: the truth about Watch Dogs is all over the net, I don't have time to educate on you something so prevalent.
yes, the truth about Watch Dogs is out there. the truth of Ubisoft getting caught gimping the PC version.

And because Steam's sales provide such small benefit to the publisher, there's no need to optimize for high-end GPU, or even mid-range video cards.
Uh, what? Steam sales means publishers earn more in that shrt sale time period than it does for months outside of sales. i wouldnt say thats a small benefit. they wouldnt try the same tactic on consoles if they didnt see it work. And what the hell does sales got to do with high-end GPUs?

Results?
A 760 can't even run Shadow of Mordor or Evil Within at High Settings 1080p60
Hold your horses here. i got a 760gtx. I have not overclocked it. I can run Shadow of Mordor.

As usual, there's what you're saying, and then there's real world results.
Could you please stop spreading FUD around?
[HEADING=1]Oh so transparent[/HEADING]
You're not interested in learning the other side's pro's -- you just want to argue for the sake of it. You're just playing around with words and amusing yourself with one-up GIF's -- and which is fine, I guess, but I have no use for that. If you can't spend 5 minutes reading through half an article on Watch_Dogs or Digital Foundry's analysis on the latest multi-platform releases, or the economics of Steam's humble bundles vs console software sales, then there's no reason to even waste my time on you.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
pilar said:
You're not interested in learning the other side's pro's -- you just want to argue for the sake of it. You're just playing around with words and amusing yourself with one-up GIF's -- and which is fine, I guess, but I have no use for that. If you can't spend 5 minutes reading through half an article on Watch_Dogs or Digital Foundry's analysis on the latest multi-platform releases, or the economics of Steam's humble bundles vs console software sales, then there's no reason to even waste my time on you.
Ech, i just found that Jims gif so fitting considering the irony of your title. sorry for having some fun when posting about videogames.