Update: GTA V Coming to PC, Says Nvidia

[Steven Bogos]

Update: GTA V Coming to PC, Says Nvidia

Nvidia expects PC game revenues to exceed Xbox and PlayStation revenues combined.

Nvidia seems to know something that we don't, and is something Rockstar Games is being very coy about - the existence of a PC version of Grand Theft Auto V. In an Earnings call, Senior IR Director of Nvidia Chris Evenden said:

"Many consumers look for PC as a general purpose device they can use for browsing, email, social media video. But much of this can be better served by a tablet. In contrast, gamers are preparing their systems for a strong roster of games coming this fall, including blockbuster franchises, such as Call of Duty: Ghosts, Grand Theft Auto V and Assassin's Creed IV"

The fact that he specifically mentions the title seems to suggest that he knows for sure that it is coming to PC. GTA titles typically appear on the PC six months to a year after their console releases, although this time developer Rockstar has yet to confirm a PC edition, despite an online petition amassing over 200,000 signatures [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126219-Grand-Theft-Auto-V-PC-Petition-Hits-200-000-Signatures].

Evenden went on to claim that PC games are where the real money is at, estimating that in 2015, PC game revenues will exceed that of PlayStation and Xbox combined.

"Open platform such as PC and Android are outgrowing the world [sic] gardens of the traditional console market. They benefit from more innovation. Nearly half of the developers surveyed at GDC recently who are working on PC games compared only 11% on Next Gen consoles. PC game revenues are expected to reach around $20 billion annually by 2015, whereas the total for both PlayStations will be less than $10 billion and Xbox is only around half of that"

Grand Theft Auto V is due out for the PS3 and Xbox 360 on September 17th.

Source: Crave Online [http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/551597-nvidia-says-gta-5-coming-to-pc-revenue-more-than-playstation-and-xbox-combined-ps4-xbox-one]

Update: Sorry to disappoint guys, but it looks like this was just a slip-of-the-tongue on Nvidia's part. It has offered the following statement:

"Please note, during our Thursday's earnings call, our investor relations team provided a list of important games that gamers are looking forward to on PC this fall, and included Grand Theft Auto V on that list. This statement was made with the intent of expressing enthusiasm for the games industry in general, and was not intended to represent specific knowledge possessed by NVIDIA. NVIDIA does not have information on any possible PC version release of Grand Theft Auto or its availability. We deeply regret the error."

Source: Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/08/12/nvidia-claims-grand-theft-auto-v-coming-to-pc-this-fall/] (Thanks Shadow-Phoenix!)

Permalink

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Obligatory

I know that's the only way I'm going to buy GTA V. Mind you, I need to actually install IV first and play it too...

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

It's no surprise that PC gamers would eventually get GTA V at all, even with the really bigoted petition.

However as usual I can't help but feel that what someone from Nvidia would say that and totally not come off as biased in saying that PC's will come out on top, like I've heard hundreds say it will but it hasn't and if it did everyone would then magically have to conform, download all the knowledge of PC how to's and build themselves a PC.

Except that isn't going to happen anytime soon if at all because there will always be those that think different and will buy different.

I mean sure it's great that we'll get to play GTA V on the PC but ho boy will I expect the massive ego strokes that will come once it arrives on the PC platform.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Not surprising. PCs actually generate better revenue for companies over consoles, simply by the fact that people will buy up the games new, on sales, and years down the road and the company will still get most of that money, where as years down the road or even months down the road people would just pick up a used console copy instead.

In short, better prices for gamers, and more money for developers.

Just surprising that some companies are stupid enough to delay PC launch for months like rockstar does then whine about low sales... Of course the sales are low when it launches, anyone who wanted to play it badly enough to buy it day one bought it for a less preferable console because thats where it was.

Bingo. There may be fewer PC capable of running next gen games than combined numbers of consoles, but the combination of a lack of a used games market and Steam Sales mean that PC game development provides a much more stable, long term revenue stream compared to consoles big release windfall followed by used games filling the shelves instead of new stock.

And lets not forget the fact Rockstar released GTA4 with GFWL attached to it like a malignant tumor.

Spoiler: Obligatory

I know that's the only way I'm going to buy GTA V. Mind you, I need to actually install IV first and play it too...

Heh. The PC scene is looking pretty good right now, even with the next gen of consoles spooling up for release.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Oh, well I guess I'll actually play this game now.

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

i'm just annoyed that it take 6 - 12 months to port a game over to PC that likely was developed on one and then they still keep the crappy controls or video options.

but yes i'll buy the physical copy since they are one of the few games left that fill a game box with a decent manual and maps

 

[lacktheknack]

And to think that a mere two or three years ago, PC gaming was doomed.

Let this be (yet another) lesson in PC longevity.

OT: Cool. I'm going with Saints Row IV instead, but competition never hurt anyone.

 

[Adon Cabre]

"Open platform such as PC and Android are outgrowing the world gardens of the traditional console market. They benefit from more innovation. Nearly half of the developers surveyed at GDC recently who are working on PC games compared only 11% on Next Gen consoles. PC game revenues are expected to reach around $20 billion annually by 2015, whereas the total for both PlayStations will be less than $10 billion and Xbox is only around half of that"

Permalink



I've gathered a few observations in my research for a laptop.

Don't let these numbers mislead.

Just the way the term "mobile phone" is now considered a "smart phone", in about 3 years, a PC will mean laptop. Gone are the days when Desktop Towers were the machine to have in every home. Millions will be replaced by mobile PCs in the next five years.

Laptops and Ultrabooks, the envy of most consumers, will use dual core Haswell Chips for the next five years to maintain battery life, not to mention stripped down custom Graphics cards; and this will make gaming anywhere near the Console quality impossible for new PC owners.

This is why the console will win out in big titles and indies.

The market is changing to a less powerful, more mobile, more battery friendly PC; it's one that can tackle most indies, but won't handle any upcoming big budget title. It also wouldn't be wise to project for this upcoming console generation either.

That said, I wish this graphics superiority complex would stop. It's gashing the industry of resources.​

 

[BushMonstar]

I'll be sticking to Saints Row IV, but still glad to see that it's actually coming out for PC. If I ever do pick it up, it'll be on consoles, because I have a bit of a trust issue after IV and GFWL.

 

[Teoes]

Well good. Kind knew it was coming but nice to confirmation, even if unofficial. Now hopes can rest on there being a semi-decent port. *glares at weapon wheel*

It's funny how you'll hear from some sectors that PC gaming is dying and that the market is shifting towards mobile/tablet platforms.. it's also funny how you'll hear from Nvidia when talking about earnings that it's alive and well and that they'll make buckets.

OT: Cool. I'm going with Saints Row IV instead, but competition never hurt anyone.

Spoiler: Also obligatory

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

Permalink



I've gathered a few observations in my research for a laptop.

Don't let these numbers mislead.

Just the way the term "mobile phone" is now considered a "smart phone", in about 3 years, a PC will mean laptop. Gone are the days when Desktop Towers were the machine to have in every home. Millions will be replaced by mobile PCs in the next five years.

Laptops and Ultrabooks, the envy of most consumers, will use dual core Haswell Chips for the next five years to maintain battery life, not to mention stripped down custom Graphics cards; and this will make gaming anywhere near the Console quality impossible for new PC owners.

This is why the console will win out in big titles and indies.

The market is changing to a less powerful, more mobile, more battery friendly PC; it's one that can tackle most indies, but won't handle any upcoming big budget title. It also wouldn't be wise to project for this upcoming console generation either.
That said, I wish this graphics superiority complex would stop. It's gashing the industry of resources.

How does this actually have anything to do with gaming PCs? Or people that want to get into gaming PCs?

Besides, the Haswell Dual Cores arent bad. And if the GPU is the HD 4600 OR better ( in time) then I see nothing bad in it. The HD 4000 was already slightly better then the PS3/X360s GPU capable of running games just as well. The 4600 is another step above .

Also, whilst graphics are not the most important thing and definitely NOT the reason to PC game (cheapness, longevity,backwards compatibility with older games and console exclusives, mod support, better communities... etc) they are NOT what is killing the resources. Marketing, obscene optimization costs(due to the 7th gen), actors and what not are what kills the costs.
There were games made for "pocket change" back in 2008 that look better then 99% of games today (STALKER Clear Sky). Recently an absolutely fantastic looking games, Metro Last Light, that overshadows practically everything, with the possible esception of Crysis 3 (and is a much better game IMO...) came out being much cheaper then other games.

P.S Sorry for double post

In order to get a PS3 quality experience on integrated graphics, the developer has to optimize their game for every ivy-bridge & Haswell chip iteration. That's impossible; but closed platform consoles provide one standard for optimization.

Globalization needs marketing to sell the game in Brazil, Chile, Russia and southern Europe. New markets require investment. And voice acting is much more immerse than graphics. Bioshock Infinite used actors. Fallout 3 used Liam Neeson.

 

[Rack]

I wonder how many Titans you'll need to keep the 700 log in packages from degrading performance below that of the PS3 version.

 

[AJey]

Another great example of dumbing down the game for the sake of sales. Developers would rather make the game worse and put it on a console than risk piracy on a PC. It angers me greatly.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

Permalink



snip

snip

snip

Actually no. The HD 4000 just does play pretty much every game on the same settings as a console would. The DH 4600 a little better. Also, true for the optimization part. It is ALSO bloody expensive to build things for limited hardware . Optimization for old OpenGL and DX9 costs more then on DX11. It is also harder and probably quite annoying to have to cut parts of your game or scale down everything (Skyrim) so that it fits on a low end hardware.
Never said anything about globalization. Most of those markets (Russian, Souther and Eastern Europe ) in aprticular are PC territory. And whilst you are correct on voice acting, it is still possible to just use cheaper actors. Bioshock Infinite immersive? Well proably, I guess it might seem that way . Compare it to Metro Last Light, STALKER or some other game that really relies on getting the player immersed and it does falter somewhat . Id say graphics and AI are just as/more important whilst in actual gameplay though.

This will probably fly right over your head, but you asked for it.

*sighs*

You're right, but you're argument isn't fair. Technology will always be the limiting factor, and it will always be expensive. But you're argument inadvertently reveals that (a) you're a PC elitist, or (b), like most pc gamers, you don't understand the economics of the system.

This is because most "Game Journalists" have never applied basic economics to their field; or they're too afraid to tell the PC community.

Question:

What if this industry were dominated by the PC?

Hint: it would be hell.​

SimCity 2013

The only real triple-a exclusive for the PC and a sad truth for this outcome. EA cheated that community because it could; because it didn't have to meet SONY and Microsoft's publishing demands; and neither would never have approved of their server control.

EA doesn't give a damn about one consumer as much as it does the bottom-line; and this would be commonplace in a lone PC market. Why else was Dark Souls was never upgraded for the PC? Because they know that sales are so minimal that any more work put in it would only hurt profits.

Hell, it's a PC game, the community can slave away at it anyways. You think other publishers wouldn't do that? They know that most people can't play high or ultra settings, so most would put out terrible versions and the PC community would have to mod it themselves.

But modding would be gone altogether with DRM.

DRM. Every publisher would install harsh set of DRM because, like oil & OPEC, when they all do it, you'd have to deal with it. So there wouldn't be any modding.

But because triple-A publishers don't rely on PC sales, they can toss you a bone every now and then and lax the system. Their money comes from console consumers, who bear the burden of the industry, and who are constantly bashed by PC elitists for hurting their own up-resed experience.

Steam
Steam exists because of consoles, or else every publisher would have it's own install server like EA's Origin. Oh boy, what fun that would be?

Console players pay $60 so that you can buy the same game for $4 a few months later. Get rid of consoles, and you're sales of Assassin's Creed or Witcher (a PC exclusive) would take forever to climb down to $16 instead of $5, just like a console. And there wouldn't be any $8 bundles, either.

What, you think the suits charge less on the PC because it makes them feel good?

That's economics. One division of this industry affects another. And you're awesome PC sales happen only because of the console's success.

So pray for another console generation after the Playstation 4 and Xbox One​

 

[Revolutionary]

Oh good I may actually get to play this game...eventually. Don't fuck this up Rockstar if you put this game on GFWL you can forget about it.

 

[fix-the-spade]

And to think that a mere two or three years ago, PC gaming was doomed.

This is always cyclical though, in 2005 console gaming was doomed in the face of World of Warcraft, Half Life 2, Battlefield 2 and Crysis looming round the corner.

Fast forward to 2010 and PC gaming is doomed having had it's market share shrink dramatically.

Now by 2015 PC gaming is expected to be the big dog again(according to Nvidia).

Although this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. For this generation Nvidia has essentially abandoned the console market in favour of it's traditional PC components and chasing smartphone/tablet hardware sales. They've handed all three manufacturers to AMD on a plate and the new generation being runaway successes would be problematic for them to say the least.

Hundreds of next gen titles, all squarely optimised for AMD graphics cards, just what Nividia wanted.