Update: GTA V Coming to PC, Says Nvidia

[Doom972]

Not very surprising. Now all that remains is to wait and see if it's as good as the videos show.

"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.

Laptops aren't a good choice as your main gaming platform. Desktops always give you more value for your money, have better cooling, and are much easier to upgrade. Also, gaming using a laptop screen and a laptop's keyboard for a long time is very uncomfortable. You could plug a monitor and an external keyboard, but then you basically are using an inferior desktop.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Well at the moment the PC generally sits around the 360 level of revenue for companies like EA and Ubi, so what they're expecting is for PC revenue to double and for consoles to stay static.

However, that's only considering console-orientated publishers, with games like LoL (whose playerbase rivals the size of the entirity of xbox live), PC is definitely already a long way ahead in revenue.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Not very surprising. Now all that remains is to wait and see if it's as good as the videos show.

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.

Laptops aren't a good choice as your main gaming platform. Desktops always give you more value for your money, have better cooling, and are much easier to upgrade. Also, gaming using a laptop screen and a laptop's keyboard for a long time is very uncomfortable. You could plug a monitor and an external keyboard, but then you basically are using an inferior desktop.

My point is that the average person, a casual gamer, has no idea what you're talking about. All they want to do is play Grand Theft Auto V.

So the average person buys a console and saves the rest for a mid-range laptop; because they want, and more than gaming, the mobility of a laptop.

Desktops will be non-existance for most of the first world countries in three years. Everyone will own a laptop, with smaller CPU processors and only integrated graphics.

What happens to PC gaming then?

Even more Niche.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Well at the moment the PC generally sits around the 360 level of revenue for companies like EA and Ubi, so what they're expecting is for PC revenue to double and for consoles to stay static.

However, that's only considering console-orientated publishers, with games like LoL (whose playerbase rivals the size of the entirity of xbox live), PC is definitely already a long way ahead in revenue.

You'd be surprised how few of those LoL players actually buy triple-A's. For them, that MMO is enough to absorb their life. There's a reason that Steam never gives the sales numbers.

Nvidia is hyping itself.

 

[hawkeye52]

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

I'm sorry but this is one of the biggest piles of crap I have seen in a while. You have made direct assumptions based on one thing which has no correlation to how the market actually works in PC affairs.

For a start Sim City 2013 is a fucking terrible example of the PC market at play purely because it was such an anomomily in the PC market that even EA said they done fucked up with it and resulted in a massive amount of negative press for the game despite the fact that it has a large core fanbase.

You also seem to have neglected the fact that there are in fact games that have been developed for the PC and nothing else that are doing well. Look at CD Projekt with titles like The Witcher. A popular well done game on the PC with no DRM whatsoever that has done exceedingly well.

I am not sure what you are saying about dark souls but the reason why it wasn't initially released on PC was not because they saw it as a vulnerable market but because the company who made it was Japanese and the PC market there is so minimal (Due to Nintendo's dominance there) that it simply wasn't worth it and because of the small market they had never developed for PC before (This was shown by the fact that they released a game that had some game breaking bugs in it but was fixed by some amature programmer within a few days in a patch). When they finally released in a big way in the West they got many petitions asking for them to make a PC version and lo and behold they did. Also they must have had enough success on the PC because they are also releasing dark souls 2 on the PC as well when that comes out.

I don't know why you have this obssession with triple A games and publishers and seem to think that they are vital to the industry when they really aren't at this point. Triple A games themselves are just a pointless waste of money and a time sink for developers which forces them to play safe and release really rather mediocre games. The only reason they are there is because people consistantly buy the same damn game over and over again because they fail to realise that it's the same game as they played before except now it has a dog and a slightly bigger number. Publishers themselves are nearly all without exception leeches on the industry as well. The only publishers that are actually any good are Bethesda and Paradox Plaza. The rest of them (EA, Activision etc) can go burn in a hole now. They had a job and it's done. The game industry simply doesn't need them anymore.

The most successful developers in the game industry now hands down are the ones that are not yoked to any publishers whims. Look at Riot games who currently develop the biggest game in the world called League of Legends. Currently so big that they have had Esports recognised as a sport in the United States. Valve who were so successful with Half Life, Portal, L4D and other games now also have the biggest digital distribution platform in the industry. Blizzard, Although technically a publisher there biggest success comes from the games they developed such as WoW SC and the Warcraft franchise.

DRM is not something that is required at all and only the fucking mindless idiots of gaming industry still use draconian DRM. See Assassins Creed. Released on the PC and people refused to buy and play it because of the Uplay system that Ubisoft setup. It resulted in the Pirated version being the better version then the official because it allowed people to play it while offline. This also comes down to the thinking that piracy is naturally a bad thing and a problem when really it's a symptom of a problem of overpriced games in the industry due to the culture of the Triple A. See World of Good as a point in case example of being one of the most expensive indie games of it's time on release being also the most heavily pirated and then as time went on it sales went through the roof because of word of mouth due to the initial onslaught of piracy. Developers are starting to see this now and are turning away from DRM more and more. See GoG as an example of this.

Triple A publishers don't "Toss us a bone" they bloody fuck us over with buggy releases and games stripped of features that have been dumbed down. See any CoD past CoD4 (Now on CoD10) and see any Battlefield past Battlefield 2142 as examples.

Onto Steam. There are multiple digital distributors now. Steam is just the biggest. GoG, Greenman Games, Impulse, GamersGate, Origin, Uplay. There are a few more as well but those are the ones that come off the top of my head. The reason why peopel don't go to them is because most of them are fucking terrible. Hell even Steam is bloody terrible except that it makes up with it for steam sales and even some of their more draconian policies are being argued against in the European courts as being against the law in the EU. Hence why Europe and the rest of the world have different EULA's and T&C's. Btw the steam sales are done with developers consent. It isn't just steam forcing them to lower the price of their game because fuck your company. It's simply in their economic interests to lower the price of their games in a big summer blowout the same way that clothing stores have sales except since they aren't selling anything physical they don't have to worry about the product selling for more then it's raw material cost.

You do realise that PC tends to outsell consoles in games right? For example the sheer amount of people who buy games during the Steam summer sales, Other incredibly popular games like minecraft that went viral, The way that there are many games that are still much better played on PC then on console and so tend to sell more on PC like Skyrim.

They also lower the prices of games because they are getting old. They become a less competative buy then other more recent games that have been released at full price. Have you not noticed the trend that big game developers have been doing as of late and trying to get most of their sales off of Day one DLC and through preorder bonuses? It isn't because they rewarding the customer for buying their game before it's released or before reviews have come out properly as you put it "because it makes them feel good" it's because they make most of their sales on that day. Every day after their profits slip week on week to the point where the only way to sell their game is to lower the price. For example I don't expect to go into a game shop and buy a PS2 game for £40 or Thief: Deadly Shadows for £35 on PC because the game is old.

I don't "pray for another console generation" because if the last one was any indication this one will last for a good 10 years as well if not more since it costs so much to develop, market and release a new console and diminishing returns kicks in. Plus the consoles are becoming more and more like PC's and not the other way round. Hell both consoles now have PC architecture whereas the previous generation didn't and was one of the core reasons why the PC suffered (if at all) simply because it was a pain in the arse to port (See GTA IV).

However I suppose now you are going to insult me by calling me a PC elitist (Despite the fact that I have owned consoles all my life as well as a PC but have found that I prefer the PC after many years with both simply because it is on an objective standpoint in nearly all ways. Better and say that I don't understand economics either simply because I don't subscribe to your set of thinking the same way that Keynes and Hayek don't agree on how an economy should be run.

 

[Clovus]

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

*sighs*

Good grief.

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.

I'd agree that there is a lot of basic confusion regarding economics, but I'm not sure why the PC market should be worried.

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.

Huh? You can't claim that the entire PC market would be like SimCity just because supes-dumb EA did something super dumb. I don't think the elitist PC gamers need Microsoft and Sony's help. SimCity is a very particular product. I think EA knew they could focus on the more casual side of that audience and sell SimCity the same way that they've always handled The Sims. Those two titles are a in a very particular category by themselves. They are not a reflection on the general PC market.

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.

All companies care about the bottom-line, even Valve. I don't see how the decisions of a non-PC oriented Japanese company has much to do with the PC market. If your argument here made sense, then Dark Souls II would be another terrible port, but they've made it clear that they are working on a PC version from the beginning this time.

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.

I have no idea where you are going with this. Why do companies currently bother to include graphical options above what the consoles can handle? Because that means better sales on the PC port. Dark Souls was never intended to be a PC title. They made it clear that it would be a bare-bones port. Using Dark Souls as an example of the entire PC market is completely bonkers.

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.

Sure, some PC games have had modding removed because of DRM. And DRM != no modding, BTW. But for every example where modding was restricted there are huge success stories for games that have allowed it, with Skyrim being a big huge dragon in the room. Whether or not DRM is used has nothing to do with consoles. You didn't even try to make a connection. Also, modding is just getting better and more common. In the past it was really confusing. Now you just click a few buttons in the Steam Workshop. It's not hard for companies to see that allowing that modding leads to more sales as cool mods get mentioned in the press all the time and drive sales.

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.

And yet you have triple-A titles like the Witcher 2 primarily aimed at the PC. Restricting this argument to "triple-A" is also kinda' dumb. I'd agree that profits on Call of Duty rely very heavily on the consoles to overcome their ridiculous marketing budgets. You can't just restrict the discussion to only games primarily aimed at consoles.

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?

Ok, you've gone completely off the tracks here. You seem unaware of the history of Steam and basic economics. Steam beat everyone to the market and have huge control over that market now. If EA's Origin and Ubisoft's store had been there from the beginning, Steam wouldn't have the power it has now. That has nothing to do with the consoles.

If anything, you're argument would make it MORE likely for companies to jump from Steam. If Ubisoft makes ALL its money from the consoles, they shouldn't have a problem taking a big loss by removing everything from Steam and only using their storefront. But that's not actually the case. Ubi likes money, so they stay on Steam and also have their own storefront.

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.

And yet, PC exclusives drop in price just as fast as non-exclusives. The PC digital download market is bolstered by not having to compete against used titles and better competition.

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

Yes, the suits charge less because it makes them feel good. It makes them feel good to roll around in piles of cash. Gabe Newell has explained several times the huge piles of cash he and developers get when they do the big sales, especially since they end up with a sales bump even after the discount ends.

It's weird that you started this by bringing up economics, but none of your arguments have anything to do with economics. Companies don't "throw bones" to players - they want to make money. If putting a title on PC will make them money, then they do it. If adding modding makes them money, they do it. If putting in high-res textures and shinies will sell more copies, then they do it. No company thinks, "Gee, we've made all the money we need with our console sales, so I guess will just waste a bunch of money making a PC port for the fun of it."

Tying the economics of PC sales to the consoles is silly. The PC market is very different from the console market: Piracy is easier, no used sales, almost no in-store retail, competition from MMOs and F2P, and pricing history. Those are the things that have driven the PC market.

Here's and economics term: price discrimination. Valve understood that concept and that's why we have sales. Even if MS and Sony suddenly declared that there would be no new consoles, it won't change what consumers are willing to pay. No company is going to stop selling games at a discount because they'd miss out on a huge part of the market. That's part of the PC market and it's not going to change.

Note: I'm fine with a continued consoles market. I own a PS3 and think consoles are good, easy way to get into gaming.

 

[A3sir]

I'm still waiting on Red Dead.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

Permalink



snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

I'm sorry but this is one of the biggest piles of crap I have seen in a while. You have made direct assumptions based on one thing which has no correlation to how the market actually works in PC affairs.

For a start Sim City 2013 is a fucking terrible example of the PC market at play purely because it was such an anomomily in the PC market that even EA said they done fucked up with it and resulted in a massive amount of negative press for the game despite the fact that it has a large core fanbase.

You also seem to have neglected the fact that there are in fact games that have been developed for the PC and nothing else that are doing well. Look at CD Projekt with titles like The Witcher. A popular well done game on the PC with no DRM whatsoever that has done exceedingly well.

I am not sure what you are saying about dark souls but the reason why it wasn't initially released on PC was not because they saw it as a vulnerable market but because the company who made it was Japanese and the PC market there is so minimal (Due to Nintendo's dominance there) that it simply wasn't worth it and because of the small market they had never developed for PC before (This was shown by the fact that they released a game that had some game breaking bugs in it but was fixed by some amature programmer within a few days in a patch). When they finally released in a big way in the West they got many petitions asking for them to make a PC version and lo and behold they did. Also they must have had enough success on the PC because they are also releasing dark souls 2 on the PC as well when that comes out.

I don't know why you have this obssession with triple A games and publishers and seem to think that they are vital to the industry when they really aren't at this point. Triple A games themselves are just a pointless waste of money and a time sink for developers which forces them to play safe and release really rather mediocre games. The only reason they are there is because people consistantly buy the same damn game over and over again because they fail to realise that it's the same game as they played before except now it has a dog and a slightly bigger number. Publishers themselves are nearly all without exception leeches on the industry as well. The only publishers that are actually any good are Bethesda and Paradox Plaza. The rest of them (EA, Activision etc) can go burn in a hole now. They had a job and it's done. The game industry simply doesn't need them anymore.

The most successful developers in the game industry now hands down are the ones that are not yoked to any publishers whims. Look at Riot games who currently develop the biggest game in the world called League of Legends. Currently so big that they have had Esports recognised as a sport in the United States. Valve who were so successful with Half Life, Portal, L4D and other games now also have the biggest digital distribution platform in the industry. Blizzard, Although technically a publisher there biggest success comes from the games they developed such as WoW SC and the Warcraft franchise.

DRM is not something that is required at all and only the fucking mindless idiots of gaming industry still use draconian DRM. See Assassins Creed. Released on the PC and people refused to buy and play it because of the Uplay system that Ubisoft setup. It resulted in the Pirated version being the better version then the official because it allowed people to play it while offline. This also comes down to the thinking that piracy is naturally a bad thing and a problem when really it's a symptom of a problem of overpriced games in the industry due to the culture of the Triple A. See World of Good as a point in case example of being one of the most expensive indie games of it's time on release being also the most heavily pirated and then as time went on it sales went through the roof because of word of mouth due to the initial onslaught of piracy. Developers are starting to see this now and are turning away from DRM more and more. See GoG as an example of this.

Triple A publishers don't "Toss us a bone" they bloody fuck us over with buggy releases and games stripped of features that have been dumbed down. See any CoD past CoD4 (Now on CoD10) and see any Battlefield past Battlefield 2142 as examples.

Onto Steam. There are multiple digital distributors now. Steam is just the biggest. GoG, Greenman Games, Impulse, GamersGate, Origin, Uplay. There are a few more as well but those are the ones that come off the top of my head. The reason why peopel don't go to them is because most of them are fucking terrible. Hell even Steam is bloody terrible except that it makes up with it for steam sales and even some of their more draconian policies are being argued against in the European courts as being against the law in the EU. Hence why Europe and the rest of the world have different EULA's and T&C's. Btw the steam sales are done with developers consent. It isn't just steam forcing them to lower the price of their game because fuck your company. It's simply in their economic interests to lower the price of their games in a big summer blowout the same way that clothing stores have sales except since they aren't selling anything physical they don't have to worry about the product selling for more then it's raw material cost.

You do realise that PC tends to outsell consoles in games right? For example the sheer amount of people who buy games during the Steam summer sales, Other incredibly popular games like minecraft that went viral, The way that there are many games that are still much better played on PC then on console and so tend to sell more on PC like Skyrim.

They also lower the prices of games because they are getting old. They become a less competative buy then other more recent games that have been released at full price. Have you not noticed the trend that big game developers have been doing as of late and trying to get most of their sales off of Day one DLC and through preorder bonuses? It isn't because they rewarding the customer for buying their game before it's released or before reviews have come out properly as you put it "because it makes them feel good" it's because they make most of their sales on that day. Every day after their profits slip week on week to the point where the only way to sell their game is to lower the price. For example I don't expect to go into a game shop and buy a PS2 game for £40 or Thief: Deadly Shadows for £35 on PC because the game is old.

I don't "pray for another console generation" because if the last one was any indication this one will last for a good 10 years as well if not more since it costs so much to develop, market and release a new console and diminishing returns kicks in. Plus the consoles are becoming more and more like PC's and not the other way round. Hell both consoles now have PC architecture whereas the previous generation didn't and was one of the core reasons why the PC suffered (if at all) simply because it was a pain in the arse to port (See GTA IV).

However I suppose now you are going to insult me by calling me a PC elitist (Despite the fact that I have owned consoles all my life as well as a PC but have found that I prefer the PC after many years with both simply because it is on an objective standpoint in nearly all ways. Better and say that I don't understand economics either simply because I don't subscribe to your set of thinking the same way that Keynes and Hayek don't agree on how an economy should be run.

It's hard to sift through that angry writing, but I'm actually finding that you agree with me on practically every point, just not in same rationale.

*shakes head*

So you think that EA's SimCity(2013) was an anomaly -- just a freak accident? You bought their answer? They would never lie *Sarcasm*.

Your not connecting the dots.

This kind of operation would be commonplace if other more and more publishers began their own digital distribution. But fortunately for you, this industry banks off of consoles. Steam sells so low with sales because the publishers aren't willing to fight them like book publishers do with Amazon. The big boys make their money off of consoles.

But if consoles did not exist, what's to stop the publishers from installing harder amounts of DRM? There is none, because they are all doing it.

As for repetition in triple-A's; you better get used to it. Example: Ice Age Sequels declined in ticket sales in the US, but abroad, each sequel increased in sales until the final movie nearly doubles in the Orient. Globalization will keep IP's surviving. So I won't be surprised if Assassin's Creed goes into 2017 because of its high demand in China or India.

The concept of PC is changing. Haswell barely raises CPU and integrated graphics, but it's pushing battery life. So while the common PC becomes anemic, but very mobile, the video game industry will maintain an expanding quality library because it's on an optimized, strong PC.

Actually, I think that this generation will closely resemble the PS2 era, and so that even you, a PC elitist will own one as well.

 

[lacktheknack]

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

Spoiler: Also obligatory

Because screw realistic gritty crime dramas.

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 Nvidia wanted.

Well, seeing the number of people saying "SCREW THIS ENTIRE GENERATION I'M GOING PC", Nvidia might be savvier than we think.

 

[hawkeye52]

snip

Permalink



snip

It's hard to sift through that angry writing, but I'm actually finding that you agree with me on practically every point, just not in same rationale.

*shakes head*

So you think that EA's SimCity(2013) was an anomaly -- just a freak accident? You bought their answer? They would never lie *Sarcasm*.

Your not connecting the dots.

This kind of operation would be commonplace if other more and more publishers began their own digital distribution. But fortunately for you, this industry banks off of consoles. Steam sells so low with sales because the publishers aren't willing to fight them like book publishers do with Amazon. The big boys make their money off of consoles.

But if consoles did not exist, what's to stop the publishers from installing harder amounts of DRM? There is none, because they are all doing it.

As for repetition in triple-A's; you better get used to it. Example: Ice Age Sequels declined in ticket sales in the US, but abroad, each sequel increased in sales until the final movie nearly doubles in the Orient. Globalization will keep IP's surviving. So I won't be surprised if Assassin's Creed goes into 2017 because of its high demand in China or India.

The concept of PC is changing. Haswell barely raises CPU and integrated graphics, but it's pushing battery life. So while the common PC becomes anemic, but very mobile, the video game industry will maintain an expanding quality library because it's on an optimized, strong PC.

Actually, I think that this generation will closely resemble the PS2 era, and so that even you, a PC elitist will own one as well.

Sorry the 36C heat in Cyprus really gets to me. Sim City will be an anomaly purely because every company observed what happened with Microsoft and how much negative criticism it received and will not wish to drag that upon itself. Companies have been ruined by bad reputations. For example no one will buy a game from hammerpoint now the same way everyone detracts from Zynga. Companies make great leaps to try and improve their reputation. For example Magicka (A highly successful and popular game) was terrible on release due to the sheer amount of bugs in it (I am talking more then Bethesda level) which rendered it unplayable. But paradox plaza pulled it back when they released a load of free dlc to make up for it and fixed the bug patches. There are still problems but you can at least play the game now.

Steam has some of the hardest DRM in the business due to the nature of how Digital distribution works and how they sell you licenses as opposed to games. However in the EU this going to get wiped away in the next year or so because they are being told to stop these draconian practices. Other distributors which do well and host sales (Not as much as steam but still fairly regularly) is GoG. Most of their games are from a bygone era but they are attracting the support of my indy developers like the aforementioned CD Projekt.

Movies are rather irrelavant in this discussion because of the medium they are played on barely changes and doesn't have competing brands. For example blue ray and DVD is about as close as it gets but even then every release gets a DVD release and maybe a Blue ray if it's from Hollywood. Also film is different to games purely because some gaming cultures are entirely different in both function and form. So for example in Japan the handheld market is massive and dominant whereas the console market is tiny to and the same goes for the PC market there. In Cyprus the Xbox just wouldn't sell because the damn thing overheated and broke most of the time whereas the PS3 (Which was more solidly built and could stand more) didn't and so was the much better seller here by far. These are far away examples but it shows some of the core differences in market between different mediums.

I have both a desktop and laptop. Both are good but one was supremely more expensive then the other. Until it gets to the point where it is viable to buy a gaming laptop that doesn't cost twice as much as a desktop. I am sticking to the desktop.

Trust me. I might eventually get a console (Not for £300 though) I will still prefer the PC setup because M+K to me is superior. Plus I can't play LoL or any grand strategy games/rts's on a console.

 

[Adon Cabre]

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

*sighs*

Good grief.

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.

I'd agree that there is a lot of basic confusion regarding economics, but I'm not sure why the PC market should be worried.

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.

Huh? You can't claim that the entire PC market would be like SimCity just because supes-dumb EA did something super dumb. I don't think the elitist PC gamers need Microsoft and Sony's help. SimCity is a very particular product. I think EA knew they could focus on the more casual side of that audience and sell SimCity the same way that they've always handled The Sims. Those two titles are a in a very particular category by themselves. They are not a reflection on the general PC market.

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.

All companies care about the bottom-line, even Valve. I don't see how the decisions of a non-PC oriented Japanese company has much to do with the PC market. If your argument here made sense, then Dark Souls II would be another terrible port, but they've made it clear that they are working on a PC version from the beginning this time.

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.

I have no idea where you are going with this. Why do companies currently bother to include graphical options above what the consoles can handle? Because that means better sales on the PC port. Dark Souls was never intended to be a PC title. They made it clear that it would be a bare-bones port. Using Dark Souls as an example of the entire PC market is completely bonkers.

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.

Sure, some PC games have had modding removed because of DRM. And DRM != no modding, BTW. But for every example where modding was restricted there are huge success stories for games that have allowed it, with Skyrim being a big huge dragon in the room. Whether or not DRM is used has nothing to do with consoles. You didn't even try to make a connection. Also, modding is just getting better and more common. In the past it was really confusing. Now you just click a few buttons in the Steam Workshop. It's not hard for companies to see that allowing that modding leads to more sales as cool mods get mentioned in the press all the time and drive sales.

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.

And yet you have triple-A titles like the Witcher 2 primarily aimed at the PC. Restricting this argument to "triple-A" is also kinda' dumb. I'd agree that profits on Call of Duty rely very heavily on the consoles to overcome their ridiculous marketing budgets. You can't just restrict the discussion to only games primarily aimed at consoles.

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?

Ok, you've gone completely off the tracks here. You seem unaware of the history of Steam and basic economics. Steam beat everyone to the market and have huge control over that market now. If EA's Origin and Ubisoft's store had been there from the beginning, Steam wouldn't have the power it has now. That has nothing to do with the consoles.

If anything, you're argument would make it MORE likely for companies to jump from Steam. If Ubisoft makes ALL its money from the consoles, they shouldn't have a problem taking a big loss by removing everything from Steam and only using their storefront. But that's not actually the case. Ubi likes money, so they stay on Steam and also have their own storefront.

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.

And yet, PC exclusives drop in price just as fast as non-exclusives. The PC digital download market is bolstered by not having to compete against used titles and better competition.

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

Yes, the suits charge less because it makes them feel good. It makes them feel good to roll around in piles of cash. Gabe Newell has explained several times the huge piles of cash he and developers get when they do the big sales, especially since they end up with a sales bump even after the discount ends.

It's weird that you started this by bringing up economics, but none of your arguments have anything to do with economics. Companies don't "throw bones" to players - they want to make money. If putting a title on PC will make them money, then they do it. If adding modding makes them money, they do it. If putting in high-res textures and shinies will sell more copies, then they do it. No company thinks, "Gee, we've made all the money we need with our console sales, so I guess will just waste a bunch of money making a PC port for the fun of it."

Tying the economics of PC sales to the consoles is silly. The PC market is very different from the console market: Piracy is easier, no used sales, almost no in-store retail, competition from MMOs and F2P, and pricing history. Those are the things that have driven the PC market.

Here's and economics term: price discrimination. Valve understood that concept and that's why we have sales. Even if MS and Sony suddenly declared that there would be no new consoles, it won't change what consumers are willing to pay. No company is going to stop selling games at a discount because they'd miss out on a huge part of the market. That's part of the PC market and it's not going to change.

Note: I'm fine with a continued consoles market. I own a PS3 and think consoles are good, easy way to get into gaming.

I think that there are so many strings being pulled in so many places that it's hard for us to make a connection. Consoles affect PC more than people realize. Consoles are the life blood of this industry. The big boys don't fret with Steam's discounts because they know how small the PC market is in relation to consoles.

So go ahead and buy Assassin's Creed 2 at $4 on Steam; it sold nearly 5.5 million copies on the PS3. What do the suits care about PC sales? That's just whip cream on the chocolate cake that is the console sales.

SimCity and Origin were not accidents, and they are a perfect reflection of what this market could look like. It was a risk that they were pretty sure would fail; but it didn't matter to them, because that game had to launch. And that's just it -- absent of consoles, there is little quality control. It's the wild west online.

Publishers can distribute their games online, but retail is still the most profitable way of doing it. As soon as they see a trend toward digital sales, you can bet that they close up shop with Steam, or least fight their ridiculous sales. It's all about riding a wave, and Steam is doing an absolutely fantastic job at it; and even as it convinces people that they own their content.

Good for them.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

Permalink



snip

It's hard to sift through that angry writing, but I'm actually finding that you agree with me on practically every point, just not in same rationale.

*shakes head*

So you think that EA's SimCity(2013) was an anomaly -- just a freak accident? You bought their answer? They would never lie *Sarcasm*.

Your not connecting the dots.

This kind of operation would be commonplace if other more and more publishers began their own digital distribution. But fortunately for you, this industry banks off of consoles. Steam sells so low with sales because the publishers aren't willing to fight them like book publishers do with Amazon. The big boys make their money off of consoles.

But if consoles did not exist, what's to stop the publishers from installing harder amounts of DRM? There is none, because they are all doing it.

As for repetition in triple-A's; you better get used to it. Example: Ice Age Sequels declined in ticket sales in the US, but abroad, each sequel increased in sales until the final movie nearly doubles in the Orient. Globalization will keep IP's surviving. So I won't be surprised if Assassin's Creed goes into 2017 because of its high demand in China or India.

The concept of PC is changing. Haswell barely raises CPU and integrated graphics, but it's pushing battery life. So while the common PC becomes anemic, but very mobile, the video game industry will maintain an expanding quality library because it's on an optimized, strong PC.

Actually, I think that this generation will closely resemble the PS2 era, and so that even you, a PC elitist will own one as well.

Sorry the 36C heat in Cyprus really gets to me. Sim City will be an anomaly purely because every company observed what happened with Microsoft and how much negative criticism it received and will not wish to drag that upon itself. Companies have been ruined by bad reputations. For example no one will buy a game from hammerpoint now the same way everyone detracts from Zynga. Companies make great leaps to try and improve their reputation. For example Magicka (A highly successful and popular game) was terrible on release due to the sheer amount of bugs in it (I am talking more then Bethesda level) which rendered it unplayable. But paradox plaza pulled it back when they released a load of free dlc to make up for it and fixed the bug patches. There are still problems but you can at least play the game now.

Steam has some of the hardest DRM in the business due to the nature of how Digital distribution works and how they sell you licenses as opposed to games. However in the EU this going to get wiped away in the next year or so because they are being told to stop these draconian practices. Other distributors which do well and host sales (Not as much as steam but still fairly regularly) is GoG. Most of their games are from a bygone era but they are attracting the support of my indy developers like the aforementioned CD Projekt.

Movies are rather irrelavant in this discussion because of the medium they are played on barely changes and doesn't have competing brands. For example blue ray and DVD is about as close as it gets but even then every release gets a DVD release and maybe a Blue ray if it's from Hollywood. Also film is different to games purely because some gaming cultures are entirely different in both function and form. So for example in Japan the handheld market is massive and dominant whereas the console market is tiny to and the same goes for the PC market there. In Cyprus the Xbox just wouldn't sell because the damn thing overheated and broke most of the time whereas the PS3 (Which was more solidly built and could stand more) didn't and so was the much better seller here by far. These are far away examples but it shows some of the core differences in market between different mediums.

I have both a desktop and laptop. Both are good but one was supremely more expensive then the other. Until it gets to the point where it is viable to buy a gaming laptop that doesn't cost twice as much as a desktop. I am sticking to the desktop.

Trust me. I might eventually get a console (Not for £300 though) I will still prefer the PC setup because M+K to me is superior. Plus I can't play LoL or any grand strategy games/rts's on a console.

You mean you can't play LoL on a console just yet.

*Mind Blown*

Some companies can afford bad reputations online because, like EA, they generate revenue elsewhere -- consoles. But its just too hard to optimize for every CPU processor and GPU on the market. There will always be bugs because so little of PC is standard.

DVD & BlueRay compete with digital sales and digital hubs; and all of this ties into theater as well. It's complicated, but there are patterns in the movie industry that resemble this industry.

And go ahead, build a rig if you know how to; you'll have the best visual experience that the market can offer, and you'll be able to play GTAV sometime in Jan 2015

Or are you confident in a 2014 release?

 

[hawkeye52]

snip

Permalink



snip

It's hard to sift through that angry writing, but I'm actually finding that you agree with me on practically every point, just not in same rationale.

*shakes head*

So you think that EA's SimCity(2013) was an anomaly -- just a freak accident? You bought their answer? They would never lie *Sarcasm*.

Your not connecting the dots.

This kind of operation would be commonplace if other more and more publishers began their own digital distribution. But fortunately for you, this industry banks off of consoles. Steam sells so low with sales because the publishers aren't willing to fight them like book publishers do with Amazon. The big boys make their money off of consoles.

But if consoles did not exist, what's to stop the publishers from installing harder amounts of DRM? There is none, because they are all doing it.

As for repetition in triple-A's; you better get used to it. Example: Ice Age Sequels declined in ticket sales in the US, but abroad, each sequel increased in sales until the final movie nearly doubles in the Orient. Globalization will keep IP's surviving. So I won't be surprised if Assassin's Creed goes into 2017 because of its high demand in China or India.

The concept of PC is changing. Haswell barely raises CPU and integrated graphics, but it's pushing battery life. So while the common PC becomes anemic, but very mobile, the video game industry will maintain an expanding quality library because it's on an optimized, strong PC.

Actually, I think that this generation will closely resemble the PS2 era, and so that even you, a PC elitist will own one as well.

Sorry the 36C heat in Cyprus really gets to me. Sim City will be an anomaly purely because every company observed what happened with Microsoft and how much negative criticism it received and will not wish to drag that upon itself. Companies have been ruined by bad reputations. For example no one will buy a game from hammerpoint now the same way everyone detracts from Zynga. Companies make great leaps to try and improve their reputation. For example Magicka (A highly successful and popular game) was terrible on release due to the sheer amount of bugs in it (I am talking more then Bethesda level) which rendered it unplayable. But paradox plaza pulled it back when they released a load of free dlc to make up for it and fixed the bug patches. There are still problems but you can at least play the game now.

Steam has some of the hardest DRM in the business due to the nature of how Digital distribution works and how they sell you licenses as opposed to games. However in the EU this going to get wiped away in the next year or so because they are being told to stop these draconian practices. Other distributors which do well and host sales (Not as much as steam but still fairly regularly) is GoG. Most of their games are from a bygone era but they are attracting the support of my indy developers like the aforementioned CD Projekt.

Movies are rather irrelavant in this discussion because of the medium they are played on barely changes and doesn't have competing brands. For example blue ray and DVD is about as close as it gets but even then every release gets a DVD release and maybe a Blue ray if it's from Hollywood. Also film is different to games purely because some gaming cultures are entirely different in both function and form. So for example in Japan the handheld market is massive and dominant whereas the console market is tiny to and the same goes for the PC market there. In Cyprus the Xbox just wouldn't sell because the damn thing overheated and broke most of the time whereas the PS3 (Which was more solidly built and could stand more) didn't and so was the much better seller here by far. These are far away examples but it shows some of the core differences in market between different mediums.

I have both a desktop and laptop. Both are good but one was supremely more expensive then the other. Until it gets to the point where it is viable to buy a gaming laptop that doesn't cost twice as much as a desktop. I am sticking to the desktop.

Trust me. I might eventually get a console (Not for £300 though) I will still prefer the PC setup because M+K to me is superior. Plus I can't play LoL or any grand strategy games/rts's on a console.

You mean you can't play LoL on a console just yet.

*Mind Blown*

Some companies can afford bad reputations online because, like EA, they generate revenue elsewhere -- consoles. But its just too hard to optimize for every CPU processor and GPU on the market. There will always be bugs because so little of PC is standard.

DVD & BlueRay compete with digital sales and digital hubs; and all of this ties into theater as well. It's complicated, but there are patterns in the movie industry that resemble this industry.

And go ahead, build a rig if you know how to; you'll have the best visual experience that the market can offer, and you'll be able to play GTAV sometime in Jan 2015

Or are you confident in a 2014 release?

You seemed to have missed the Grand strategy and Rts genre that I mentioned as well.

Also They generate revenue for PC as well. Otherwise why would they bother with origin and keep trying to push it to compete with Steam. I will relent on that it can be hard to optimise for every CPU and GPU but I reckon it's harder trying to pull every single bit of performance out of a console that is using outdated hardware.

I don't really care about the GTA series. Never have done so it's no skin off of my nose. Playing GTA has always seemed a bit pointless to me.

EDIT: Also yes they can take the publicity hit. But that is purely because they have a massive group of people who will always buy the next CoD or the next Fifa/Madden/every other sports game.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Eh, I think I'd rather pick this one up on console to be honest. It seems more like a 'put your feet up, sit back and relax' kind of game. It's also (judging by GTA4) not worth the hassle of installation and tweaking. I think I'd rather just chuck a disc in and have it work.

I love PC gaming but for some games it just doesn't seem like it's worth putting in the extra time and effort to make em work the way you want them to.

 

[Clovus]

I think that there are so many strings being pulled in so many places that it's hard for us to make a connection. Consoles affect PC more than people realize. Consoles are the life blood of this industry. The big boys don't fret with Steam's discounts because they know how small the PC market is in relation to consoles.

No, the consoles are the life blood of a very small section of the "AAA" market, like COD and Assassin's Creed. That's not the entire market. Also, it's not a problem for PC gamers if a game does well on the consoles and on the PC. They're different markets.

So go ahead and buy Assassin's Creed 2 at $4 on Steam; it sold nearly 5.5 million copies on the PS3. What do the suits care about PC sales? That's just whip cream on the chocolate cake that is the console sales.

I never get this argument. We made 100 million on consoles, so we don't care about the 10 million we made on PC. Suits like money. They like all the money they can get, eve the money from the PC. In many genres, and with some very big titles, the PC is the one making the money. Also, the formatting does not actually make your argument any better.

SimCity and Origin were not accidents, and they are a perfect reflection of what this market could look like. It was a risk that they were pretty sure would fail; but it didn't matter to them, because that game had to launch. And that's just it -- absent of consoles, there is little quality control. It's the wild west online.

What are you talking about?? Consoles don't create quality control. The only time that was true was when it was impossible to patch a game on the consoles. A lot of console titles have been a mess. That "quality control" on consoles has little to do with the PC version either.

SimCity is not an accident, but it is a very special case. It has a very different audience than most other PC titles.

I do agree that we will see more storefronts created by big companies. But, they have to fight for the consumer's dollars just like everyone else. On the consoles, the AAA games rule, so they can keep the prices high. On PC, they are fighting against a huge amount of competition. You don't have to buy games from Origin at $60. There are great F2P FPSs now on PC, and LoL and DOTA2. That's one of the reasons PC games are cheaper. It has almost nothing to do with console sales. You keep going on about economics, but you dont' address a single one of the economic factors I mentioned.

Publishers can distribute their games online, but retail is still the most profitable way of doing it. As soon as they see a trend toward digital sales, you can bet that they close up shop with Steam, or least fight their ridiculous sales. It's all about riding a wave, and Steam is doing an absolutely fantastic job at it; and even as it convinces people that they own their content.

Good for them.

Nonsense. Steam is simply just beating them by controlling the market. That could change in the future, but it has nothing to do with the consoles. Origin and Ubi's store can beat Steam when they compete on price. To claim that Steam is a small player in the market is just nonsense unless you only look at a cherry-picked list of so-called "AAA" games. But, what you are really talking about are a handful of games that are clearly made and marketed specifically to the console gamers.

I agree that the console market does have an effect on the PC market, but it's only a small part of it. You haven't said anything to back up the claim that PC pricing is low because of the consoles though. You didn't even try to address the main problem with your argument: PC exclusives follow the same pricing pattern. You argument is: "Prices are low on PC because the suits don't care." And yet the Witcher 2 is on sale on GOG.com (ie, the storefront for the people who made the game). Even Origin does sales so that they can actually sell a few copies outside the weird niche that buys The Sims and SimCity.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well, seeing the number of people saying "SCREW THIS ENTIRE GENERATION I'M GOING PC", Nvidia might be savvier than we think.

We'll see, AMD cards traditionally trade lower prices for lower performance against games made for primarily Nvidia based hardware (this gen only Nintendo use AMD internals). Even if the new consoles aren't huge we're about to get a lot of games based entirely around AMD graphics, which could leave AMD with the the cheaper and 'faster' cards on the PC market.

This generation has been weird with Microsoft using IBM and Sony using Cell architecture, so the AMD/Nvidia connections of both haven't been overly helpful. The new machines being X86 makes development even cheaper across platforms now.

 

[Worgen]

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...

That image really needs to be updated, toss duke forever and spore, put on gw2 and witcher 2 and the dawn of war games.

I just hope that 2k doesnt stuff it to the gills with drm bullshit like 4 was. It had securom, gfwl and their rockstar club thing all shoved into it.

 

[Milanezi]

I don't play games on PC, I play them on consoles, sometimes on my iPad and once in a while in my iMac... But I can't deny I'm happy with the news. I'm 100% against games being "exclusives", I understand the reasons, but as far as WE GAMERS are concerned I only see we end up at a loss, eventually you'll have the X360 player who really wants to play Uncharted, the PS3 dude who loves Halo, that sort of thing, and let's be honest, no one buys a whole other console/computer because of one or two games. We buy them because of the whole library (and most games are, fortunately, non-exclusive) and the tech the system itself brings... I say, leave the consoles/computers/handheld war restrained to tech aspects.

Obs: there are occasions where I think exclusiveness is due, but only a few; and it's when the game's mechanics makes it awful to be played anywhere else. For instance: most strategy games when taken to consoles...

 

[Abomination]

Cool, that means I can buy and play it.

But I'd rather hear this from Rockstar than Nvidia.