EA Wants Balance Between Sony and Microsoft
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
The thing is, Steam is the largest retailer of PC games and they don't release sales numbers. If you get your numbers from VGChartz then... well, don't.Little Gray said:
The tracked sales of Crysis on PC on VGchartz: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/7182/crysis/ 0.69 mil.
The official sales: http://www.zuse.hessen.de/mm/Konrad_Zuse_Kongress_Yerli_Final.pdf over 3 million units.
VGChartz also attributes lower sales to to the PC version of Portal 2 than to the console version, running contrary comments from Gabe Newell claiming the PC version sold the best. http://www.destructoid.com/portal-2-sold-better-on-pc-than-xbox-360-or-ps3-210194.phtml
The Skyrim sales figures aren't accurate, either, apparently. But I dunno how true that is, because 2.89 million on the PC alone sounds pretty fantastic to me, even if the console versions did better.
Don't get me wrong, the console market is definitely bigger, but it's hard to tell exactly how well a PC game is doing because of Steam's policy.
The thing is though Steams policy means fuck all when its a the developer releasing the sales numbers and breakdown which they always end up doing.ScrabbitRabbit said:
Which is how you can work out whether the sales trackers are right or not. In the Case of Crysis and Portal 2, they clearly aren't. The sales numbers they tracked don't match the released data.Little Gray said:
It's not just Steam games, either. Diablo 3 has sold over 12 million copies. http://diablo.somepage.com/news/1489-activision-blizzard-q4-2012-earnings-report
VGChartz does not reflect this: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/24178/diablo-iii/
that not normally what happens, what normally happens is that NPAD or whatever its called release the north american retail figures.Little Gray said:
firstly NA is about 30% of the world market, secondly PC bricks and motar was killed by said bricks and motar 5 years ago
He's right. Competition is good for the market. The problem with capitalism, especially in America is that big corporations don't want competition. They're afraid of competition. They're too lazy to compete. They are always looking for an easier way to make more money without doing anything. So now they want to find a way to control the consumers and make them dependent on the corporation, instead the other way around. And it's so transparent, it's gonna cost Microsoft a fortune. It just doesn't work.
Well, I'll agree with him in one sense: If the Xbone or PS4 dominates, it'll probably flip to a near-monopoly for whoever wins.
EA hoping everyone forgot that EA (particularly EA sports) does have some sort of exclusive deal with Microsoft regarding the Xbox One out of Ten.
And yes while competition is a good thing that doesnt mean one side cant come out on top, we dont have to support the loser just so theirs competition. and it would be more convincing if EA hadnt recently decalrd war on Nintendo.
And yes while competition is a good thing that doesnt mean one side cant come out on top, we dont have to support the loser just so theirs competition. and it would be more convincing if EA hadnt recently decalrd war on Nintendo.
I didnt see this concern for Sony when the PS3 came out and the 360 was giving it the skull fuck of its life from the start.
Wait isn't EA backing Xbox One with it's sports network or something? If so how can one talk about balance when you're so deeply invested in the one side than the other. But it is true that competition does benefit the consumers to some extent. Not just competition between the consoles, but the game companies as well. If the publishers worked just as hard to win over sales to their games we'd seen mountains of innovation. Playing it safe is almost as bad as a monopoly by one console or the other. Things stagnate.
Even if the XBOne bombs spectacularly, the games market won't be "dominated by one machine". Sure, there will only be one of the technically similar consoles around, but it won't be alone. There's still both WiiU and the PC. And if EA won't develop for either of them, well, that's too bad for them.
I would agree that this is part of EA's problem with the next generation consoles, but I think a lot of folks have missed the real problem for EA. In a single system race, large publishers will fear losing a great deal of power, small developers will fear losing access.Arawn said:
If there is only one console horse race, the balance of power shifts from the publisher to the system manufacturer. EA can no longer say "I'll take it to the other system and potentially make it exclusive" if there isn't another competing system.
The best example I can find of a single system generation would has been the Nintendo during the NES and SNES generations. Sony could push a restrictive licensing policy that had content guidelines that disallowed sexuality, profanity, drugs, and a bunch of other items similar to Nintendo did. Additionally, they could limit the number of games released by a given publisher on a per year basis, similar to Nintendo did, or limit the number of licenses to the point that small publishers get pushed out of the market altogether.
All of this makes EA uncomfortable. It will mean the loss of the "600lb gorilla" attitude that they've had for quite some time now.
I can't help but think that EA doesn't want Microsoft to fail because they want to be able to profit as much as possible and if they side too much with one company they'll tip this "balance" that they eagerly want to maintain.
I don't believe there's such a thing as "balanced competition." You can't be balanced if you're competing. That's the whole point of competing, to try and out do the other side and "win." If both parties are competing in the same balanced way... nothing's really moving forward. It's only when a wrench is thrown in and tips the scales does real progress and chance occur.
Sorry EA... you don't get my accolades just yet.
I don't believe there's such a thing as "balanced competition." You can't be balanced if you're competing. That's the whole point of competing, to try and out do the other side and "win." If both parties are competing in the same balanced way... nothing's really moving forward. It's only when a wrench is thrown in and tips the scales does real progress and chance occur.
Sorry EA... you don't get my accolades just yet.
I hope the XBox One falls flat on its face and forces MS to quit the console race and get back to the PC, its really bad for the PC player base to have a console manufacturer that views the PC as a competitor for its player base, being the majority supplier of the PC's OS.
I am in the opinion that MS have deliberately been sabotaging the PC as a hardcore gaming platform via lack of development of DX and sudden drop of dedicated hardware support for audio cards.
I bet MS would of loved to drop dedicated video card support as well but nVidia and ATi are both way more influential than Creative and the audio card manufacturers.
I believe MS would be as happy as punch if the PC was turned into a oversized iOS / Android platform so MS can still supply the business side of the PC with the OS and Office, while pulling in the royalties and licences for core games with its console.
In short MS hates competition.
In a ideal world it would serve MS right if PC gamers and developers suddenly took to Linux and was able to drop the MS OS.
Isnt it a bit much to have a competitor being the majority supplier of one of the competitions vital components?
I am in the opinion that MS have deliberately been sabotaging the PC as a hardcore gaming platform via lack of development of DX and sudden drop of dedicated hardware support for audio cards.
I bet MS would of loved to drop dedicated video card support as well but nVidia and ATi are both way more influential than Creative and the audio card manufacturers.
I believe MS would be as happy as punch if the PC was turned into a oversized iOS / Android platform so MS can still supply the business side of the PC with the OS and Office, while pulling in the royalties and licences for core games with its console.
In short MS hates competition.
In a ideal world it would serve MS right if PC gamers and developers suddenly took to Linux and was able to drop the MS OS.
Isnt it a bit much to have a competitor being the majority supplier of one of the competitions vital components?
EA has no right to tell others what 'pushes gaming forward'. 
Moving on...
I happen to agree that competition's good, but if Microsoft's going to make a console that benefits companies like EA at the expense of players, they don't understand what competition is about. Microsoft has made it easy for their competitor to slip in paid online and some social bullshit and deliver an otherwise unembelished console, something that I'd expected to be mildly good news tempered by the paid online, but is instead almost revered because of how terribly Microsoft fucked up.
Moving on...I happen to agree that competition's good, but if Microsoft's going to make a console that benefits companies like EA at the expense of players, they don't understand what competition is about. Microsoft has made it easy for their competitor to slip in paid online and some social bullshit and deliver an otherwise unembelished console, something that I'd expected to be mildly good news tempered by the paid online, but is instead almost revered because of how terribly Microsoft fucked up.