Update: GTA V Coming to PC, Says Nvidia

[DarkhoIlow]

He is quite confident I can tell you that and I would very much like to see this happen.

I am only interested about GTA5 on PC so it really depends how long are they gonna take if I will bother purchasing it or not.

Waiting 1 year after the game has already been released feels very belittling to me.

 

[Baldr]

I not going to buy it unless they release it on Next Gen or PC. I played San Andreas and IV more than 2 months. I plan on giving away my 360 to my younger sibling in November.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I prefer the PC over consoles due to options and preferences that suit my own personal approach to gaming...

...

...huh? Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to throw eggs or something? Consoles are fine but the main thing that bothers me is every time this "debate" comes up, the price point of the each piece of hardware seems to be the only point argued.

For me GTA V on the PC makes sense as the previous games have enjoyd great longevity due to the modding community.

 

[Abomination]

*Looks up* Can't we all just get along and play games on the platform of our choosing?

I think everyone wants to do that... the problem is "exclusives" which prevent such a thing from happening.

 

[Adon Cabre]

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.

So 5.5 Million copies sold adds up to $100 Million dollars? OMG. PC gamers have no idea how large the console industry is, which is why they think that the PC is just about even in numbers.

The console industry is worth 27 BILLION dollars [http://www.develop-online.net/news/44222/Microsoft-Console-industry-worth-27-billion]; and PC barely profits over the Mobile and Handheld Market at 12 Billion, but both of those two industries are going to rise astronomically in the next five years.

And we both know that LoL and other MMO players don't buy a lot of other games. They pour $ into that MMO, so they don't count for numbers in the market.

STEAM leases licenses, and not products. It controls a chunk of the PC industry because the big console boys don't care push their hand in it; as we just learned, the console market is far beyond what profits come from the PC.

SimCity was not a freak accident. Go on all you want about how honest the suits were in their apology, but this was a cold-calculated decision. EA owns the IP, so we see that exclusive and unique IP's can get taken advantage of in this market.

If the Witcher was so wildly successful on the PC, why isn't it staying on the PC? Because CDProjekt wants Assassin's Creed 3 sales numbers, and which grossed 10 MILLION copies sold between the two consoles. But with your math that's only $200 Million.

Pfft.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

Permalink



snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

I am not certain why we are arguing on this . I guess I didnt convey my message well. Here is what I wanted to say but probably didnt get across :
1. Graphical fidelity is not a bad thing. Nor is it that expensive. Small studios with not that big of a budget have acomplished things that put put TLOU, Infinite, God of War, CoD and Tomb Raider to shame... and even years before these games.
2. Technology is the same thing. Again the same arguement. Only adding that its easier to develop for DX11 and newer OpenGL then for the older ones.
3. I acknowledge that developing for one piece of hardware with specified and know components saves some time and money. My point is, that whilst that is correct, it does not outweight the pressure put on your artists and coders that have to squeez the game concept into as tight of a fits as possible whilt trying not to sacrifice too much and still making it look at least decent.

Its just that this console generation lasted a bit too long. Ohh sure it helps when building a PC or keeping the requirments down, but it must have hit the developers budgets .
4.And finally, just wanted to addres that you do not have to play on High/Ultra High settings on a PC. Are you on medium? Or maybe low but with a resolution higher then 720p? Or maybe at least with a framerate higher then 27-28? Then you are already passing console quality.

On a side note I do not agree, at least not fully with what you wrote on the PC industry and the PC future, but that is another topic. You do make some points though. Its just now what I was thinking about when I was responding earlier .

Also, yes I am a PC only user. I will probably not get into it, because, once you do the math, it is actualy more expensive. That does not mean that I disrespect the players, the developers or even the actual hardware. True, I do believe the PC gaming is "better" in every single meaningful way (because I cant take the "its too complex "thing seriously, I mean its around 40 minutes of knowledge on how to choose components, 15 on settings and around 1 hour on how to build the thing and how to maintain it, and this is a LIFE skill dammit...) however that does not mean I am filled with hate .

Medium settings on a PC are not on-par with console quality, or you haven't seen God of War & Uncharted 3. But what's the point in buying a gaming PC, or building a rig without the benefit of that visual goodness. And I'm not bashing anyone who can; by all means, Vaya con Dios (go with god); but I don't like that the PC consumers actually think that their market is on par with the console industry.

It isn't even close.

But consoles provide a huge boon to this industry, and if it limits the resources and vision of a creative director, so be it; because technology and $ will always limit those two facets of creation. There's no use getting frustrated over that. What you get, however, are tens of millions of tech un-savvy casual gamers who get to experience these titles.

That's worth it in my opinion, especially as they bare the brunt of the industry; and it allows for PC developers like CDProjekt to find console support by a Warner Bros. and build the world that they wanted to all along -- one that's 10 times the size of their smaller budgeted PC game Witcher 2.

Again, thanks to the consoles.

A lot of the massive Single Player MMO's today take massive amounts of cash that you simply will never get on PC support.

 

[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


snip

snip

snip.

So? Those same casuals you speak of were using mid-range PCs with on-board graphics chips before laptops became that popular. Those same casuals would also not get a console because they'd rather just game on their tablet.

Also, laptops are slowly becoming useless because of tablets and the cheaper and more comfortable desktops seem like a better choice for home computers because of it.

Casuals know what they're getting on a tablet, and they know what they're getting on a console. And I don't know if that's just your opinion, but everyone I talk to wants a laptop to be able to choose their place of work in their home.

The idea of a workstation is changing. People hate being ball-and-chained to one room because of a desktop. That's just boring in this mobile world.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

10$ says they slap GWFL on it and then practically no one buys it.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Forgive the double post, I assumed someone else would have posted in between while I typed this up.

But what's the point in buying a gaming PC, or building a rig without the benefit of that visual goodness.

Cheaper games.
Modifiable hardware.
Mods.
Community patch support.
More effective, responsive and adaptive control systems.
No expensive licensing costs for developers.
Indi games are more easily accessible in order to try out new ideas.
RTS games are awful on consoles.
You don't need aim assist to actually hit enemies.
A wider array of games than any other system has.
Ease of digital download for those who prefer it.
Freedom of service choice.
Game size not limited by disc size.
Save game hacking.
Free abandonware.

I could probably think of plenty more if you'd like.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Did some reading around on some articles about the PC version and it seems someone at Nvidia has made a mistake apparently.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/08/12/nvidia-claims-grand-theft-auto-v-coming-to-pc-this-fall/

Captcha: Pork Pies

Yes indeedy there has been a pork pie in the news.

 

[Doom972]

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

snip

Permalink


snip

snip

snip.

So? Those same casuals you speak of were using mid-range PCs with on-board graphics chips before laptops became that popular. Those same casuals would also not get a console because they'd rather just game on their tablet.

Also, laptops are slowly becoming useless because of tablets and the cheaper and more comfortable desktops seem like a better choice for home computers because of it.

Casuals know what they're getting on a tablet, and they know what they're getting on a console. And I don't know if that's just your opinion, but everyone I talk to wants a laptop to be able to choose their place of work in their home.

The idea of a workstation is changing. People hate being ball-and-chained to one room because of a desktop. That's just boring in this mobile world.

What does work have to do with gaming? With your logic, the PS Vita would be should be far more popular than the PS3 (and it isn't). Also, we're talking about casuals - people who never seriously got into gaming. They can barely hold a controller and would rather play mouse-only browser games or touchscreen games anyway.

Does everyone you talk to do a significant amount of their work from home? Seems a bit weird. Unless you didn't mean actual work, but non-gaming activities.

 

[oldtaku]

I trust the slip more than I trust the denial.

And honestly, why would they not crap out a cheap sh@#4ty port of the X360 version to PC and rake in all the sales like they did with IV? It's free money.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Assuming the console giants manage to meet or exceed development opportunities on PC.
Stupid/restrictive business policies have been the biggest limitation for indie devs since the beginning of the previous console generation.

Keep in mind that both Nintendo and Sony have only recently made their policies more indie-friendly in the last year, and in Nintendo's case, out of desperation.

Compare to PC, where the indie scene has been positively roaring for nearly half a decade now. They're established, and only continue to gain strength even as PS3/360 era winds down.

That's an awful lot of ground to make up, even assuming your guesses about hardware pan out for the mass market.
(for reference, my own laptop matches or exceeds both the PS4 and Xbone for raw performance specs and it isn't some 2-3k dollar monstrosity either. gaming grade laptops have only been getting cheaper these last several years despite the rise of the tablet and lightweight notebook market)

 

[Omega500]

I would like rockstar just to say yes it will be out on PC a year later (or whatever) or just come out and say no it won't.

If it ain't i will prob borrow a PS3 for it. But only if i have to.

is not entitled talk i would like to play it but am not gonna spend £100 + the cost of the game too. When i have a PC that is more than capable of playing it.

 

[teebeeohh]

This thread makes me feel incredibly nostalgic, the "pc gaming is stupid, makes no money and consoles are the unbeatable ultimate gaming machines"arguments are so 07.

 

[Granfaloon]

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.

So 5.5 Million copies sold adds up to $100 Million dollars? OMG. PC gamers have no idea how large the console industry is, which is why they think that the PC is just about even in numbers.

The console industry is worth 27 BILLION dollars [http://www.develop-online.net/news/44222/Microsoft-Console-industry-worth-27-billion]; and PC barely profits over the Mobile and Handheld Market at 12 Billion, but both of those two industries are going to rise astronomically in the next five years.

And we both know that LoL and other MMO players don't buy a lot of other games. They pour $ into that MMO, so they don't count for numbers in the market.

STEAM leases licenses, and not products. It controls a chunk of the PC industry because the big console boys don't care push their hand in it; as we just learned, the console market is far beyond what profits come from the PC.

SimCity was not a freak accident. Go on all you want about how honest the suits were in their apology, but this was a cold-calculated decision. EA owns the IP, so we see that exclusive and unique IP's can get taken advantage of in this market.

If the Witcher was so wildly successful on the PC, why isn't it staying on the PC? Because CDProjekt wants Assassin's Creed 3 sales numbers, and which grossed 10 MILLION copies sold between the two consoles. But with your math that's only $200 Million.

Pfft.

What a console fanboy. You are trying to defend your PoV with arguements that don't even don't make sense. I have a nice gaming PC which I prefer to play on because multiplatorm games are always better on PC but I still have a PS3 for the exclusives. You seem so blindly devoted to your viewpoint that you will say anything, even if it is incomprehensible, to defend it.

 

[Rhyph]

Snip

Christ, hire an editor.

While it's a shame that this turned out to be false, I kind of expected this to happen. Rockstar's been pretty quiet about the possibility of a PC release. I'll still hold out for a while and if no PC version is announced then i'll just buy a console version, mods aren't something i'm too interested in anyway.

 

[Waaghpowa]

@ the Update.

Well then, guess I WON'T be playing this game after all.

 

[Tactical Pause]

Oh god... why did I read this thread all the way through? My sanity hurts.

OT: I think everyone pretty much assumes it will make its way to PC eventually, so even if this was a mistake on Nvidia's part, I don't see that as such a big deal.

 

[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


snip

snip

snip.

So? Those same casuals you speak of were using mid-range PCs with on-board graphics chips before laptops became that popular. Those same casuals would also not get a console because they'd rather just game on their tablet.

Also, laptops are slowly becoming useless because of tablets and the cheaper and more comfortable desktops seem like a better choice for home computers because of it.

Casuals know what they're getting on a tablet, and they know what they're getting on a console. And I don't know if that's just your opinion, but everyone I talk to wants a laptop to be able to choose their place of work in their home.

The idea of a workstation is changing. People hate being ball-and-chained to one room because of a desktop. That's just boring in this mobile world.

What does work have to do with gaming? With your logic, the PS Vita would be should be far more popular than the PS3 (and it isn't). Also, we're talking about casuals - people who never seriously got into gaming. They can barely hold a controller and would rather play mouse-only browser games or touchscreen games anyway.

Does everyone you talk to do a significant amount of their work from home? Seems a bit weird. Unless you didn't mean actual work, but non-gaming activities.

That's quite a superior attitude toward casuals; but maybe you have them confused with beginners. And most people own PC's for leisure, not for work; and they want to be able to take it anywhere in their house. The days of the Desktop Tower are over.