Possible cure for so-called "consolitis"

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
have you ever seen how much a BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche go for?

I dont think that gaming in general could actually survive the cost of losing consoles at this point and charging what is needed to make up for it in PC Sales.

You said it yourself, its a different product for adifferent crowd. One thing I've noticed about all this PC is superior stuff is that its all elitism, and that when you cut that out, there's not a lot of argument left. Does that Second longer of Lag really matter? Does that giant graphical increase matter? You can do pretty much anything on a Console you can on a PC, its about the work put in. I've seen PCs that are garbage to Consoles and vice versa.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
The only "Cure" is to let PC gaming die with dignity instead of dragging it's half-dead corpse around and trying to convince people it's fine.
Pull the plug!
 

Mr. GameBrain

New member
Aug 10, 2009
847
0
0
It's simple.

Just make good quality, but accessible games! :D

But Acessable does not mean Simple!

The best games are always easy to learn, but are still overall pretty challenging.
Good Examples: Super Mario Bros., Tetris

But even better is to make sure the game has a long-term appeal.
Good Examples: Pokemon, Super Street Fighter 4

Dragon Age and Mass Effect did need tweaking, but they didn't need dumbing down.
If they were too complicated then people wouldn't have bought it in the firstplace.
If there were complaints, then maybe the systems and controls weren't introduced and explained properly...

Sometimes its all about the pacing.
Too easy too quickly = people get bored and quit
Too hard too quickly = people get frustrated and quit

EDIT: Also acessiblility should be applied to the distribution as well!

Think about it, the more available a game is, and the easier it is to get it to work, the more likely people will be able to play it.

Minecraft is brilliant because it has pretty low specs, and can be played in your browser.

Indie games are thriving because they are making themselves available on multiple platforms, (Steam, Own website, Iphone/Ipad, android, Mac, PC, Xbox Live/ PSN, Wiiware).

In that sense, games should be as cheap as possible!
(I've bought many games on a whim because there is little investment to lose on them. So I can afford to take a risk on it!!)
 

binvjoh

New member
Sep 27, 2010
1,464
0
0
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
There's no objective proof that the PC experience is superior, though I prefer it myself as well, and it should not require any aditional charge.
There's no objective proof of anything, the OP was just stating his opinion.
What he's suggesting is a shift in business stratergy, my opinion is that such should be based on actual facts rather than speculations.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Souplex said:
The only "Cure" is to let PC gaming die with dignity instead of dragging it's half-dead corpse around and trying to convince people it's fine.
Pull the plug!
Poor attempt at trolling.

It's not like the console market isn't in any trouble. PS and the XBox are choking financially. Look at how the generation of these consoles were lengthened due to high production costs of a new console. They are having to adopt more PC ideas to increase longevity like selling upgrades, and other attachments. The high cost, and longer generation will spell out trouble for consoles on the loss leader method of business. If selling consoles themselves can't make a profit they rely on games. On the developer's side however its absolute hell. Console tax, second hand market, and high development costs on top of that. Which is why console titles have come down drastically in the past few years.

Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)

Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.

Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)

Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062

The time frame for the last generation was 7 years, and yet the current generation is off by 856 games. When the Xbox and PS3 were first released they were sold at a loss, relying on console games to make up the difference. You could say "oh but the console makes more money" but it isn't that way in the eyes of Activision, who makes 70% of their money from the PC, and portable PCs. Keep in mind this is the same "PC hating publisher" that was responsible for modern Warfare 2.

Basically, the profits are being drained by many factors including manufacturing, tech level, mounting development costs, etc.

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ubisoft-development-costs-to-double-next-gen
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.52799-News-Report-Says-Rising-Development-Costs-A-Nightmare
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9823945-7.html?tag=mncol;title
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/more-wii-games-from-ea-thanks-to-low-development-costs/

The PC, on the other hand, is a self-sustaining market.

I'm not predicting the death of consoles here, since they're obviously going to adapt. The fact is, none of the platforms are going to vanish.

Also, try harder next time.

Info outsourced from UltraTwinkie
 

Sikachu

New member
Apr 20, 2010
464
0
0
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
There's no objective proof that the PC experience is superior, though I prefer it myself as well, and it should not require any aditional charge.
There's no objective proof of anything, the OP was just stating his opinion.
What he's suggesting is a shift in business stratergy, my opinion is that such should be based on actual facts rather than speculations.
And the burden you're presenting for things to be called 'facts' seems to be "objective proof". Which is impossible. Don't try to be a smartarse and you might learn something from this forum.
 

binvjoh

New member
Sep 27, 2010
1,464
0
0
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
There's no objective proof that the PC experience is superior, though I prefer it myself as well, and it should not require any aditional charge.
There's no objective proof of anything, the OP was just stating his opinion.
What he's suggesting is a shift in business stratergy, my opinion is that such should be based on actual facts rather than speculations.
And the burden you're presenting for things to be called 'facts' seems to be "objective proof". Which is impossible. Don't try to be a smartarse and you might learn something from this forum.
The point I'm trying to make is that a shift in prices should be backed up by reasoning grounded in objectivity.
For example, the OP drew a comparison between the car industry and how heftier prices for brands considered higher quality is reasonable. The difference is that there are set parameters that cars are judged by, this is not the case when it comes to PC vs. Console gaming experiences. Such things come down to software rather than hardware in this case.

Also, calling me a smartarse because you don't agree with me isn't very nice.
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
Here is how i see it:

If the game on console is very expensive but lacks any diversity or actual decent plot i'll give it a pass.

If the game is expensive and has actual decency in the plot then i'll simply pick the game piece by piece to find out if its really worth buying.

On a side note Starcraft II best purchase i ever made.
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
allinwonder said:
QQ I want better exclusive titles QQ!
Well I'll list some god damn good exclusive titles for you:

StarCraft2, World of Warcraft, Shogun 2 Total War, Civilization 5, Dawn of War 2 (And no Blizzard don't charge insane prices, at least not where I live)


God I am sick of PC elitist, when the PC probably has some of the best exclusive titles as any other console. And if you start looking at it some of the more "serious" game designers are seeing that the PC is again becoming a viable market. Besides why the hell do you need the titles to be exclusive and premiere? Exclusivity never made a game better... for the most part.


I for one think PC gaming is going pretty strong at the moment, its just different from what it was 10 years ago, and we need to learn to deal with that.

Personally I choose my games based on what platform I feel they are best suited. and Hell SC2 would never ever work on a Console, same as Little Big Planet wouldn't work well on a PC.
 

Astalano

New member
Nov 24, 2009
286
0
0
kortin said:
I prefer console games when it comes to graphics. Mostly because I don't want to spend $100 for a new graphics card every time I buy a new generation game so I can run the game at the highest quality. <-- Exaggeration. Even still, i bought a new game the other day and wasn't able to run it at the highest graphic quality because my graphics card wasn't powerful enough.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my computer and gaming on it, but I don't rely on my computer when I want to play a game with the absolute best graphic quality. This is because I don't want to spend money to keep my machine up to date.
So, you feel compelled on PC to have maximum graphics settings, yet go with the console for graphics...

You do know there are at least 3 other main settings (low, medium, high)? Consoles are low settings.

I'm sick of this excuse that people NEED to have the best graphics cards on PC. No one forces you to upgrade your machine more often than once every 4-5 years. If you want better graphics, that's your decision.

If anything, from what I understand of many people, consoles are their cure for some crazy addiction to good graphics.
 

Sikachu

New member
Apr 20, 2010
464
0
0
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
There's no objective proof that the PC experience is superior, though I prefer it myself as well, and it should not require any aditional charge.
There's no objective proof of anything, the OP was just stating his opinion.
What he's suggesting is a shift in business stratergy, my opinion is that such should be based on actual facts rather than speculations.
And the burden you're presenting for things to be called 'facts' seems to be "objective proof". Which is impossible. Don't try to be a smartarse and you might learn something from this forum.
The point I'm trying to make is that a shift in prices should be backed up by reasoning grounded in objectivity.
For example, the OP drew a comparison between the car industry and how heftier prices for brands considered higher quality is reasonable. The difference is that there are set parameters that cars are judged by, this is not the case when it comes to PC vs. Console gaming experiences. Such things come down to software rather than hardware in this case.

Also, calling me a smartarse because you don't agree with me isn't very nice.
Calling you a smartarse full stop isn't very nice. Calling you one because I disagree with your opinion would be stupid. I called you a smartarse becuase of your confrontational tone and use of bold which combined to make it obvious you aren't really bothering to take in what I'm saying but rather more interested in 'winning'.

You're also completely and hilariously wrong about the difference between cars and gaming hardware. But I'm not going to bother explaining to someone who doesn't care to listen.
 
Aug 21, 2010
230
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)

Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.

Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)

Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062


Info outsourced from UltraTwinkie
I'm guessing the 70% means average review scores? If it means gross profit margin that would be interesting.

Anyway, its the PS3 that is bringing the overall numbers down - and you are comparing a 6 year period for last gen with a 4 year period for PS3. When you look at the 360 and Wii, there have been more games released in approximately the same length of time as their predecessors.

Shouldn't a fair comparison across time on consoles' commercial success be based on total unit sales rather than number of titles released?
 

binvjoh

New member
Sep 27, 2010
1,464
0
0
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
Sikachu said:
binvjoh said:
There's no objective proof that the PC experience is superior, though I prefer it myself as well, and it should not require any aditional charge.
There's no objective proof of anything, the OP was just stating his opinion.
What he's suggesting is a shift in business stratergy, my opinion is that such should be based on actual facts rather than speculations.
And the burden you're presenting for things to be called 'facts' seems to be "objective proof". Which is impossible. Don't try to be a smartarse and you might learn something from this forum.
The point I'm trying to make is that a shift in prices should be backed up by reasoning grounded in objectivity.
For example, the OP drew a comparison between the car industry and how heftier prices for brands considered higher quality is reasonable. The difference is that there are set parameters that cars are judged by, this is not the case when it comes to PC vs. Console gaming experiences. Such things come down to software rather than hardware in this case.

Also, calling me a smartarse because you don't agree with me isn't very nice.
Calling you a smartarse full stop isn't very nice. Calling you one because I disagree with your opinion would be stupid. I called you a smartarse becuase of your confrontational tone and use of bold which combined to make it obvious you aren't really bothering to take in what I'm saying but rather more interested in 'winning'.

You're also completely and hilariously wrong about the difference between cars and gaming hardware. But I'm not going to bother explaining to someone who doesn't care to listen.
Confrontational tone? More interested in winning? Someone who doesn't care to listen?

What are you smoking?
I'm done, feel free to respond but this is the last effort I'll put towards this discussion.
 

Arehexes

New member
Jun 27, 2008
1,141
0
0
allinwonder said:
(Disclaimer: I am a die hard PC gamer)
So there is a big fuss recently about "consolitis". I found this argument quite often:

"People need to understand that games development is a business and for any business to survive it needs to sell to as many people as possible."

Seems correct, right? Wrong. Why BMW, Mercedes, Porsche survive so good without selling to as many people as possible? I mean, they obviously cater to a different crowd than, say, Toyota or Honda, but they are still doing quite well.

So why there is only "consolitis", no "Hondalitis", etc? Well, the problem is, it is an industrial norm that PC games and console games sell for the same price (bar $10 MS/Sony royalties). Developers/publishers make same amount of money from PC games and console games. But developing for PC obviously is more costly (both financially and intellectually), because of high demand from PC gamers, complexities and graphic etc.

PC gamers all advocate that gaming on PC is a premium experience (relative to console). So let's charge premium price for a premium experience. Charge more for high quality PC exclusives. Like BMW and Mercedes charge more for their cars than Toyota and Honda's.

Before you call me an idiot, I tell there are already developers out their doing that. See: Blizzard. Blizzard deliver high quality PC exclusives. But they always charge "outrageous" price for their games. Long before even video games on consoles were $50, they charge #60 for their games (Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 for sure; I heard they also charge $60 for Starcraft back then). Even today, the MSRP of Diablo 2 + XPack is still $40. An almost 10 year old game! But if I hadn't bought it, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

OK, that's just my 2 cents.
Sounds like xbox live gold where you pay to have online. Also you can piss off, I'm honestly tired of "PC gaming is best" crap and btw GAMES ON CONSOLES WHERE 40 AND 50 BUCKS DURING SNES AND NES DAYS. I wish gamers would stop this crap about "Oh I'm better then you because I play on X while you play on Y", It's the same in the end a bloody game. I guess PC gaming isn't the best since mobile devices are getting even more popular now huh? But what ever you can come up with "ways to improve gaming for PCs" I'm going to enjoy my: Dreamcast, PS2, gameboy, gameboy advance SP, DS, PSP, PS3, Wii, Gamecube, xbox 360, and PC (which are all f'ing awesome to play, but then again I feel like I'm more of a "gamer" then you since I can enjoy my games for what they are).
 
Aug 21, 2010
230
0
0
The way I see it, is this: some people who prefer to or exclusively play games on PC, say it is the better platform because it has more powerful technology, then complain that the games made for it don't make full use of that technology.

My view is, these people are saying that the PC is potentially a better platform for graphics, but sadly at the moment graphics aren't at the tippety top of what they could be.

You want to pay more for shinier graphics? That's your choice. Personally I'd rather pay more to get more shooters where the gameplay isn't run-stop-aim-shoot-run and goes back to the real, original advantage of the mouse and keyboard combo - accurate circle strafing while bunny-hopping and shooting a rocket launcher at where your opponent is going to be a half a second's time. Who's up for a game of Quake 3?
 

Arehexes

New member
Jun 27, 2008
1,141
0
0
Also I don't have to deal with DRM on a console, soooooo good luck with persistent online connections that a lot of people complain about
 

SinisterGehe

New member
May 19, 2009
1,456
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
Everyone will just pirate the games anyway. PC gamers are killing themselves, if they want to fix the problem it is as simple as STOP BREAKING THE LAW YOU [removed for common decency]
Yes it is known fact that console games can not be pirated... -.-

On topic:

Why are games such as Amnesia, Penumbra, minecraft so popular on PC then? They can easily be pirated yet they sold amazing numbers, why? For few reasons -Cheap -Good games -Easy accessibility.

I will not spend my money on bad PC ports of console games that are buggy and badly balanced and aren't updated. Why I spent 60 euros for SC2 on the release day? It is good game, it is generally balanced, it is updated and has "almost" limitless content. Compare to something like BF2:BC2, few new maps and few guns that are balanced stupidly (Since when assault rifle was better and more accurate in long range than a sniper rifle?)

Games that are good on computer are games that can be modded and supports extra content, both offical and fan made. Fallout 3 and FNW, even if they are buggy and tend to crash. Oblivion is good example. CS:S, TF2 etc...

Games that don't do good on PC are games that are just released and then forgotten by their developers. Or games that can not be modded "legally". I spent 60 euros for Dead space, I sat down - played and finished 3½hrs later. That is not enough value for my euros, I spent 60 euros for Fallout 3, I got over 120hrs played on it. I got ~400hrs on TF2. I have played WoW since EU release (6 years?).

Game developers need to get their heads out of their asses and look how the world really works. >They need to make games that have content, they need to keep them updated, they must allow fan-made mods and content. Also prices need to drop.

I would buy console for myself, but I can not simply afford to play it (Or play it due to my right hand's neurological condition). ~270 euros for a console + ~80 euros a single game. + 20 euros?? For the change of playing online. Ok buying 1 console is cheaper than a computer, thing is that I can do more things with a computer. I use computer to, Play games, work, Compose/arrange and run my music programs.

Well, I don't know what future has for us but fact is, there will always be games for PC and there will always be games for consoles (Like people are still trading games for and playing on NES)

Also games that focus on content instead of graphics are coming back, small and Indie companies are kicking out huge profit to investment numbers. I'd say that the days of big companies dominating PC gaming are gone, it is small companies and Indie companies playground now.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
Just to point out something I didn't see mentioned:

while the PC can deliver a superior performance to most consoles if you have $2-3,000 to spend on it, that doesn't automatically mean everyone who plays PC games can afford to do that. I know plenty of people who dial the graphics settings way down to play on an older PC (I was one of those people until recently). So to arbitrarily add some kind of 'premium surcharge' to PC games would tend to drive away anyone who can't or won't spend thousands of dollars on a gaming PC.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned it takes a lot more than some shiny textures to make a game 'premium'.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Honestly, I would prefer to play on a console over a PC. However, I hate gamepads for my favorite genre of game: shooters. Now, if I could just hook up a keyboard and mouse to a console, I'd be happy. I know there is some kind of adapter made by a third party, but I've heard nothing but bad things about it. Here's hoping the next console generation is keyboard/mouse compatible!
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
Wait charge more for a PC game? WHAT? Dude a good gaming rig even custom made will still cost at least 800 bucks. I could by an Xbox 360, Wii and PS3 with that cash. That's kinda the reason I only play Emulators, Minecraft and Morrowind on my computer.