Piracy, Not Consoles, Killed the PC Exclusive

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

almost every one of those are mmos or rts, and the 80% of them are most definitely NOT triple A. Nice try, but this strengthens my argument, not yours

16 of the PC games on that incomplete list are neither MMO nor any sort of strategy.

While you are excluding games, why not exclude J-RPGs from the list as well? And what about crappy Kinect games? Hmm? IS Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time the Triple-A game of 2012? Mario Party 9?

PS: you've got balls to arbitrarily dismiss an argument then say that strengthens your own. Not very big balls, but balls all the same.

Yea im picturing you with your fingers in your ears going "LALALALALA CONSOLETARD LALALALA" because youre not listening to my point. Your arguument is that piracy is somehow not affecting the gaming market at all or the decisions of publishers and developers to migrate away from pc, that is simply uninformed. Look at pc gaming ten years aago vs. today. Is it as robust or exciting? If you say yes then, we have nothing more to discuss. Simple answer yes or no

Yes

(I don't have delusions piracy isn't affecting PC gaming, be Piracy has been ask easy an prevalent today as in the 1980's. I think the number of exclusives and lack of games getting console-only release as evidence that devs are NOT migrating away from PC)

 

[MrTub]

Spoiler

almost every one of those are mmos or rts, and the 80% of them are most definitely NOT triple A. Nice try, but this strengthens my argument, not yours

16 of the PC games on that incomplete list are neither MMO nor any sort of strategy.

While you are excluding games, why not exclude J-RPGs from the list as well? And what about crappy Kinect games? Hmm? IS Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time the Triple-A game of 2012? Mario Party 9?

PS: you've got balls to arbitrarily dismiss an argument then say that strengthens your own. Not very big balls, but balls all the same.

Yea im picturing you with your fingers in your ears going "LALALALALA CONSOLETARD LALALALA" because youre not listening to my point. Your arguument is that piracy is somehow not affecting the gaming market at all or the decisions of publishers and developers to migrate away from pc, that is simply uninformed. Look at pc gaming ten years aago vs. today. Is it as robust or exciting? If you say yes then, we have nothing more to discuss. Simple answer yes or no

Snip

You might want to add some stuff otherwise he will most likely report you and then you will get a warning

 

[Treblaine]

Love your mis-reading of everything I wrote. I said it 'may well have been x100' not it was. And no you cannot just look at CPU clocks and memory. CPU clocks on the PC have been about the same for the past fives years if not longer, around 3GHz. But the power has gone up due to different architectures. Unless you have got something that says the difference was less than the supposed x10 difference there is now then you cannot prove the disparity was not more then.

Well it is YOU who is claiming the difference in power between consoles and PC in the PS2 era. That places the burden of proof on you as you are countering the statement I shared from John Carmack.

"until the 360 / PS3, the PC and consoles never shared a game version release." For Medal of Honour, fairly obvious I was talking about only Medal o Honour. That there were multiformat games at the time was not being disagreed with.

Also made some note about your supposed good examples of these games were on console too games. Cannot be bother to point out why the rest also don;t qualify as 'multi format' as the term is used today.

There are so many reasons for these Medal of Honor game differentiation from console and PC.

My point of listing the MANY examples of games getting co-releases/ports between console and PC as evidence for how the PC-console gulf was not so great.

No, most games are multi-format now with their being no difference between the PC and consoles versions apart from the graphics fidelity and the option to use mouse and keyboard. If you believe they are getting further apart how come most PC games are still using DirectX 9 to render graphics, I wonder why? I am a huge PC fan and have hardly gamed on anything else since I got my first PC in 1989, but even I am not deluded enough in my fandom to that most of our games now, are pretty much what you get on other platforms now. Your belive that they are growing further apart is crazy. The only thing growing further aprt is the processing divide which will be cut again when the next gen of consoles launch.

Well one treason I think most are still on DX9 is because DX10 has been a massive failure, with hardly any of its features being worth while, it can't really do anything you couldn't to almost as well but more efficiently in DX9. DX11 has just become available and MANY games are taking GREAT advantage of it.

 

[Warforger]

I'd make a list of upcoming PC Exclusives, but someone already did [http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216513p1.html]. Enjoy the impossibilities!

I'd make a list of upcoming PC Exclusives, but someone already did [http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216513p1.html]. Enjoy the impossibilities!

Erm he said BIG BUDGET exclusives, while some of those there are big budget I'd imagine like Diablo 3 most seem to just be more indie games like Armored Gettysburg (balance things out? What? The Union had the advantage in everything except in morale and military expertise along with the CSA's possible foreign support).

 

[dulbirakan]

I want to be able to be more positive but to me Titan Quest was a soulless diablo clone. There are games that succeed in PC so maybe it is not the piracy but sth about TQ that caused its failure.

 

[ph0b0s123]

-snipped for space-

Well it is YOU who is claiming the difference in power between consoles and PC in the PS2 era. That places the burden of proof on you as you are countering the statement I shared from John Carmack.

Well back in 2005 when the PS2 was getting as long in the tooth as when Carmack made those coments about the current consoles, I had a PC with an AMD Athlon 64 CPU and a Nvidia GTX 7800 GPU.

According to the specs the emotion engine that powered the PS2 was capable of 6 GFLOPS of processing power.

The specs for my CPU were 10 GFLOPS and Nvidia GPU 165 - 200 GFLOPS. So more than x10. The ATI x850 PE I had before that was rated 66 GFLOPS, so it was x10 4 years into the PS2 life whereas John's claim about current consoles came 6 years into their lifetime.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_Engine
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-7800-gtx-hits-store-shelves,1106.html

-snipped for space-

There are so many reasons for these Medal of Honor game differentiation from console and PC.

So many reasons, the main one being processing power though. With the consoles of the time not being able to run even ported versions of the PC game.

My point of listing the MANY examples of games getting co-releases/ports between console and PC as evidence for how the PC-console gulf was not so great.

Half the games you mentioned had to wait years for ports to enable newer generations of consoles to arrive, but whatever.

-snipped for space-

Well one treason I think most are still on DX9 is because DX10 has been a massive failure, with hardly any of its features being worth while, it can't really do anything you couldn't to almost as well but more efficiently in DX9. DX11 has just become available and MANY games are taking GREAT advantage of it.

DX 11 has been around for years and it only has a minority of PC games that use it, but again whatever. What is true is that due to the long life of the current consoles, when they bow out the console vs PC processing difference will never have been as large.

 

[Tommahawk]

Actually, as a PC gamer, I don't give a fuck about "lack of big budged PC exlusive titles". And while I understand the concept between exlusive titles, I fact I don't really like the idea

 

[DTWolfwood]

Judging by how many pages this article already has, i can safely say that this article is one giant flame bait XD

rootofallevil already said pretty much what i think about it on page one.

 

[Treblaine]

-snipped for space-

Well it is YOU who is claiming the difference in power between consoles and PC in the PS2 era. That places the burden of proof on you as you are countering the statement I shared from John Carmack.

Well back in 2005 when the PS2 was getting as long in the tooth as when Carmack made those coments about the current consoles, I had a PC with an AMD Athlon 64 CPU and a Nvidia GTX 7800 GPU.

According to the specs the emotion engine that powered the PS2 was capable of 6 GFLOPS of processing power.

The specs for my CPU were 10 GFLOPS and Nvidia GPU 200 GFLOPS. So x100 was a bit low....

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_Engine
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-7800-gtx-hits-store-shelves,1106.html

-snipped for space-

There are so many reasons for these Medal of Honor game differentiation from console and PC.

So many reasons, the main one being processing power though. With the consoles of the time not being able to run even ported versions of the PC game.

My point of listing the MANY examples of games getting co-releases/ports between console and PC as evidence for how the PC-console gulf was not so great.

Half the games you mentioned had to wait years for ports to enable newer generations of consoles to arrive, but whatever.

-snipped for space-

Well one treason I think most are still on DX9 is because DX10 has been a massive failure, with hardly any of its features being worth while, it can't really do anything you couldn't to almost as well but more efficiently in DX9. DX11 has just become available and MANY games are taking GREAT advantage of it.

DX 11 has been around for years and it is only a minority or PC games that use it, but again whatever. What is true is that due to the long life of the current consoles, when they bow out the console vs PC processing difference will never have been as large.

"So x100 was a bit low...."

Even if that was a relevant comparison that's 33x, not over 100x

Weeeell, I hate to nit-pick but 2005 the Xbox 360 was released so if we're going to compare 2005 tech... And PS2 was rather on the low end for that era, Xbox Original was much more powerful, 22 GigaFLOPS capable GPU and you did just happen to have the most powerful GPU of 2005. 120 GFLOPS GeForce 6800 is a bit more representative

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=422171

"So many reasons, the main one being processing power though. With the consoles of the time not being able to run even ported versions of the PC game."

Except games like Max Payne and so many others (as listed) were developed on PC and yet ported to console.

Half the games you mentioned had to wait years for ports to enable newer generations of consoles to arrive

Original Xbox in 2002 is just as powerful as the Original Xbox in 2005, it's not going to be any easier to port one year or the next. All the games I listed got ported from PC within the same console generation time where they were released.

And yeah, it's been years of DX11, but only just over 2 years and there have been a lot of games, as with this non-comprehensive list illustrates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

 

[AhumbleKnight]

Why are we measuring this with such a silly thing like who has more big buget exclusives?
Big budget != good.
Exclusives have been becoming less common for a long time. Why do we, gamers, wan't exclusives at all? I like the idea of every game becoming available on every platform. So do most developers. More platforms = bigger market and therefore potential greater profits (so long as extra dev costs for porting are outweighed by sales).

Frazier needs to stop blame shifting. Without evidence of piracy affecting sales it is mearly speculation. The reviews give it everything from average game to great. Mixed reviews do not instil confidence in a game.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Angry PC gamer here to say that a pirated game is not the equivalent of a lost sale.

Yeah, it's a product being used that wasn't paid for.

True but there is a good chance it wouldn't have been purchased in the first place.

I agree.

I fucking hate it when people say "oh, but it still could be purchased!". It's like a religious person saying to an atheist "Yeah, well YOU don't know what happens when we die, THEREFORE THERE IS A GOD". You can't prove or disprove what happens when you die, and you can't prove or disprove that someone would have bought the game in the first place.

That's such a scapegoat/defense mechanism. The fact is that a pirated incident is an incident in which the game is experienced with no exchange of money or compensation. That is what is unethical and unfair.

What happens AFTER that fact is irrelevant in a PC publisher's mind. The only thing that can be known for sure is that the experiencing of a game without paying for it is a potential sale lost....at that moment in time. I'm betting anything they're weighing in the idea that cheap bastards will outweigh honest and loyal gamers. I would too.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Lol, as if I needed another reason to not buy their game. Yeah I agree Starcraft 2 TOTALLY flopped because of all the piracy...Same with Half-Life 2 TOTALLY BOMBED /sarcasm

Does anything else really need to be said, Blizzard and Valve are two of the biggest most successful companies out there, and they are mostly PC developers. These guys are just trying to mask lazy design and try and stop piracy.

But guess what I'm not buying or pirating this game, in fact, shit if your game isn't worth my money, it sure as hell isn't worth my time.

Blizzard and Valve; the golden temple for PC gamers to go and hide in while commenting on industry news articles.

Guess what? Bliazzard has such a MASSIVE following that piracy doesn't affect it. It has Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and let's not forget, WoW.

Valve is the laziest game dev on the planet. Do you know what the Valve formula is?

1. Take Half-Life 1,2.
2. Change textures.
3. Add witty dialogue
4. Bake in multiplayer
5. Ask people for more money for basically some modification of one of the Half-Life games.
6. Charge $15-$20 so that people don't notice.
7. Revel in your ragingly borderline fascist fanbase's reaction to a "new" game.
8. Add in something retarded and useless like Hat Trading to further prevent people from noticing that they're just playing HL.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

"The PC, with piracy being as rampant as it is, is really hard to make money from."

That is absolute bullshit. Seriously, there's the obvious example of Minecraft there which has been pirated tonnes. Is Notch living on the street without a job right now? Oh right. No.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

"The PC, with piracy being as rampant as it is, is really hard to make money from."

That is absolute bullshit. Seriously, there's the obvious example of Minecraft there which has been pirated tonnes. Is Notch living on the street without a job right now? Oh right. No.

So the most popular games on PC are making money regardless of piracy. That proves....what, exactly? This is what you're saying;

Unpopular kid at school: "I don't think I want to go to the school dance. I don't think I'd be cool there."

You: "OMG U TARD LOOK AT ALL THE CHEERLEADERS AND THE JOCKS! They go and THEY are cool! You're dumb!!!111"

My point is that bringing a new game to the PC market is tough if you don't have a million and a half followers. The success stories aren't as common as you think...

 

[CarlMin]

If piracy killed the PC gaming industry, console domination is the sad biproduct.

 

[The Lunatic]

This guy seems very dense.

Although, I suppose if you're going to blame the collapse of your studio on "HURR PIRATES" then I guess it makes sense that you're also going to change your entire view of the PC industry as "HURR PIRATES ARE KILLING IT".

Meanwhile, Blizzard seem fine.

 

[CBanana]

There is the fact that multiplatform games are ever increasingly becoming the norm in the AAA world. AAA Games that are exclusive to one system are more often than not because the company/developer has strong links to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft. Simply put, in a modern AAA game, the amount of time/effort/money needed to invest into art assets, cinematics, voice acting, marketing budget etc. completely dwarfs the time/effort/money to port the game.