Update: GTA V Coming to PC, Says Nvidia

[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.

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.

I never said that the console was better, so your putting words in my mouth. I said that this industry would be just a small fraction without them.

 

[Amir Kondori]

You know it is going to come out on PC. It is a given. They have released all the previous versions on PC, they know the financial upside to doing it, it will happen. It is just a matter of how terrible will the port be, how much after console launch will the PC launch happen.

 

[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.

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.

Not really. This is the definition of casuals I'm familiar with. If you meant something else, it wasn't clear enough.

Looks like you're just going to repeat yourself instead of making any arguments, so I'm ending this conversation.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

snip

There's no way to counter your mess of a rebutal, since you're not extending your knowledge to that one hypothetical.

WHAT WOULD BUSINESS PRACTICES LOOK LIKE ON AN OPEN PLATFORM PC ONLY INDUSTRY.

It doesn't mean that consoles are better; I was saying that consoles play a much more significant role than most PC enthusiasts could even imagine. I've put up numbers in other post about these patterns on this thread -- not that they're hard to find.

I don't push PC gaming down; I push down PC elitism and ignorance by saying that consoles have a large influence on that part of the industry. I don't care if people accept it or not; but the policies and practices are just what I'd perceive for a lone, wild-west PC market.

Case in point, Steam serves the community very well because console publishers -- Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda, etc... -- can rely on its services to provide their content to a massive audience. Ubisoft even graciously goes along with Steam's sales of it's VERY EXPENSIVE triple-A titles because they've already made their money on the console.

But if consoles no longer existed, they'd have to concentrate their costs like Apple with its own means of distribution. In other words, they would control distribution of their content through their own self-produced venues, or they would be very selective about who distributes their games -- i.e the policies of sale.

Triple-A titles and other expensive productions would never, ever be so cheap in sales. And DRM policies would be far worse than what's hammering the PC market today.

PC games, excluding MMO's, have all of their their benefits because of the console market.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You know it is going to come out on PC. It is a given. They have released all the previous versions on PC, they know the financial upside to doing it, it will happen. It is just a matter of how terrible will the port be, how much after console launch will the PC launch happen.

Yeah, that's my thoughts on the matter.
It's pretty obvious that they want (or need) to milk GTA V sales on consoles first, then they MIGHT throw it on PC.

Pretty much the same sob story PC has been dealing with for years now.

 

[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.

Not really. This is the definition of casuals I'm familiar with. If you meant something else, it wasn't clear enough.

Looks like you're just going to repeat yourself instead of making any arguments, so I'm ending this conversation.

You don't understand my argument because you missed the first post I put on this thread about the shifting concepts of PC.

Anyways, have fun playing GTAV in 2015, or whenever it comes out for PC.

 

[ugle43]

You don't understand my argument because you missed the first post I put on this thread about the shifting concepts of PC.

What i enjoy most With Your posts is that you call other elitist and ckaim they have a "superior attitude". When you meet People who disagree with you with "arguments" as:

"You don't understand my argument"
" consoles play a much more significant role than most PC enthusiasts could even imagine."
"This will probably fly right over your head, but you asked for it.

*sighs*
"

 

[Clovus]

Case in point, Steam serves the community very well because console publishers -- Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda, etc... -- can rely on its services to provide their content to a massive audience. Ubisoft even graciously goes along with Steam's sales of it's VERY EXPENSIVE triple-A titles because they've already made their money on the console.

But if consoles no longer existed, they'd have to concentrate their costs like Apple with its own means of distribution. In other words, they would control distribution of their content through their own self-produced venues, or they would be very selective about who distributes their games -- i.e the policies of sale.

Triple-A titles and other expensive productions would never, ever be so cheap in sales. And DRM policies would be far worse than what's hammering the PC market today.

PC games, excluding MMO's, have all of their their benefits because of the console market.

But this argument does not meet basic concepts of economics. Prices are not set based on how much it cost to make or market something, or how much it cost to ship, or how little they care because they've made a profit. Prices are set based on what they think the consumer will pay. They don't start offering sales because they've made a profit. They put stuff on sale because they need more people to buy their game.

It's called "price discrimination". You sell as many copies as you can at $60, and then start dropping the price to pick up more sales. Given how the PC market has developed, there is a very wide range of prices that users are willing to pay. I don't even consider something until it's at least down to $25 - and that's for something I really want.

I've listed a lot of various things that contribut to this market, but you keep coming back with this one crazy idea: "AAA developers sell cheap on Steam because they don't care." If that was the case, why don't we see huge sales on COD or other mega-popular games? Why? Because people keep buying at $60. If Valve can do whatever they want, why don't they drive down the price? Because they can't. When your sales at $60 slow down, you start dropping the price. Seriously, what sounds more likely? Companies have sales to reach a wider audience and make more money, or companies have sales because they don't care?

Valve does not solely determine the price of game on Steam that was released from a AAA company like Ubi. I'm sure there are all kinds of negotiations in terms of that pricing. Indies are usually controlled by Steam since they have no leverage.

Apple doesn't prove anything. Apple keeps their prices high because people are willing to pay a high price for their stuff. People pay a premium for Apple products. Apple isn't forced to do that; they charge more because it makes sense for their product. Meanwhile, Apple has competition that charge less. Apple chosing their route did not somehow force all electronics to have inflated prices. If EA decides to only sell its games at $60 so they can be like Apple, that won't force everyone to go along. Plenty of companies will see that a lot of money can be made by meeting the price points that consumers in that market are willing to pay.

 

[Adon Cabre]

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.

Harken back to the context of my quote. Gaming PC or gaming rig. Gaming PC, be it laptop, or pre-built, should run you up at least $1000.

Gaming rig obviously means that you can upgrade for the sake of visual performance. I don't think it's very cool to build a rig and only get meager settings.

You have great points, and I have considered all of them myself for the possibility of going PC; but the problem is that I wouldn't actually that content, since license to the software is only leased to me, and not the game itself.

And that's a deal breaker. Every time I've been tempted to build or buy something truly spec worthy, I realize that I will not be able to play my content without someone else's permission.

 

[Amir Kondori]

You know it is going to come out on PC. It is a given. They have released all the previous versions on PC, they know the financial upside to doing it, it will happen. It is just a matter of how terrible will the port be, how much after console launch will the PC launch happen.

Yeah, that's my thoughts on the matter.
It's pretty obvious that they want (or need) to milk GTA V sales on consoles first, then they MIGHT throw it on PC.

Pretty much the same sob story PC has been dealing with for years now.

There is no might about it, it will definitely come out on PC, that easily represents over 1 million sales for them on that platform alone, for a game already complete they won't pass up that extra money, extra chances at selling DLC, etc. It will just be a matter of time.

For me the story isn't that sad, as there is a glut of awesome games out on PC. I literally do not have enough time to play all the games I want to. There are games I own that I am pretty sure I will never have the time to play through. So timed console exclusives like this don't bug me at all.

 

[Atmos Duality]

There is no might about it, it will definitely come out on PC, that easily represents over 1 million sales for them on that platform alone, for a game already complete they won't pass up that extra money, extra chances at selling DLC, etc. It will just be a matter of time.

I need to work on my sarcasm.
Typically, when I see a PC port from Rockstar, it's littered with bugs, poor coding and bad controls.

They're definitely going to go ahead with a port, if only because Rockstar has been hurting for cash in recent years.
I'm just not that stoked about it yet.

For me the story isn't that sad, as there is a glut of awesome games out on PC. I literally do not have enough time to play all the games I want to. There are games I own that I am pretty sure I will never have the time to play through. So timed console exclusives like this don't bug me at all.

I can barely find much that interests me, honestly. Or rather, there's a bunch of stuff I'm looking forward to, but they all just keep hiding in the nebulous realm of "Coming Soon" or keep getting pushed back.

My summer games list has been...Warframe Beta, Shadowrun Returns...and that's it.

 

[nexus]

It's actually very possible that PC sales will rival Xbox and Playstation (by 2015). All due to the fact that the new Xbox and Playstation systems are (from the ground up) extremely PC-centered, being Windows x86 and all, with standard PC processors. This means that every game made for Xbox/PS will essentially be a PC game already. With porting being far less of a project than what we've been used to. It will be easier on developers to tweak the complete shit out of every port, and nearly every console game (barring exclusive licenses) will be available, and virtually better in every conceivable way.

If it's available on PC too, performing likely 100% better than last-gen ports, then we will see an explosion for the PC. I've said it for the past year, PC will have another Golden Age 2014-2015. I predict the pros at Nixxes (PC engine tweakers for Tomb Raider, Hitman & Thief) will make some real ground breaking stuff.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Desktops will be non-existance for most of the first world countries in three years.

I enjoyed the conversation you folks were having until I got to this. Holy tin foil hat...

Adorable. :3

Anyway, I suppose I'll just wait and see on this game. I didn't get into GTA IV as much as I thought I would. I don't think I ever even beat it, so hopefully GTA V will reanimate some of my interest back into the franchise.

 

[Joccaren]

There's no way to counter your mess of a rebutal, since you're not extending your knowledge to that one hypothetical.

WHAT WOULD BUSINESS PRACTICES LOOK LIKE ON AN OPEN PLATFORM PC ONLY INDUSTRY.

At the same time, focusing on the hypothetical is like focusing on "WHAT IF THE WORLD WAS GOING TO END TOMORROW".
1. Its not going to happen.
2. You'd need more context than that to be able to make any meaningful arguments or judgements.
Whilst I skirted around that specific point, as it is rather impossible to know what the market would be like if there was only the PC, I did argue against your predictions on that point, which you claim work off economics but honestly sound a lot like paranoia or a superiority complex for consoles.

It doesn't mean that consoles are better; I was saying that consoles play a much more significant role than most PC enthusiasts could even imagine. I've put up numbers in other post about these patterns on this thread -- not that they're hard to find.

You'll find I quoted your numbers, and us PC enthusiasts can and do imagine the influence of consoles in the industry. They're the reason exclusives exist, they're the reason games cost $60, they're the reason companies like Microsoft tried to force paid multiplayer into their games with GFWL, and they're the reason for a lot of the industry's business practices, most of which a lot of us are against.

I don't push PC gaming down; I push down PC elitism and ignorance by saying that consoles have a large influence on that part of the industry. I don't care if people accept it or not; but the policies and practices are just what I'd perceive for a lone, wild-west PC market.

And this is the point; What you perceive. The PC market is not the wild-west. Its more akin to Tokyo, or what Tokyo is stereotypically perceived as anyway; beautiful, technologically forward, and very different to its counterparts in the western [Or for the PC-Console debate, console] world. There are definitely dangers there, but there are also dangers in the console market. Neither is inherently more dangerous than the other, and honestly I'm more inclined to say the PC market is at less of a risk because of pirates and crackers - Companies can't try serious BS as they know the game won't be bought, it'll be cracked and downloaded instead. This is the centrepoint of Steam's approach; Don't get in the consumer's way, be a necessity that they want to use by offering a better service than the pirates, and most people will use you instead of the pirates. And it works.

Case in point, Steam serves the community very well because console publishers -- Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda, etc... -- can rely on its services to provide their content to a massive audience. Ubisoft even graciously goes along with Steam's sales of it's VERY EXPENSIVE triple-A titles because they've already made their money on the console.

But if consoles no longer existed, they'd have to concentrate their costs like Apple with its own means of distribution. In other words, they would control distribution of their content through their own self-produced venues, or they would be very selective about who distributes their games -- i.e the policies of sale.

And this is where your argument and economics talk falls apart, as I pointed out.
Sales are not done because a company has earned enough money on consoles. A company doesn't want "Enough" money. It wants as much money as it can get its hands on. Rule 1 of economics.
As such, if they would lose money from these sales, publishers wouldn't allow it. However, they don't lose money at all on these sales. They gain a load. As I pointed out in the last post, the games on Steam cost NOTHING to distribute at all. If they sell the game for 50c, its a profit. Most of the time they sell for more than that, and they sell by the truckload, because people see they're cheap and buy them. It exploits people's impulse buying weakness, and earns a load of cash. This is why publishers allow it to happen. Even after the sales end and the prices return to full, the publicity increases the sales of their games, earning them bucket loads more money. It has nothing to do with having made their money on the console, its them milking every last cent out of the PC audience that does the trick.
And publishers already are selective about who sells their games; Brick and mortar stores, or Steam - sometimes with their own platform included if they have one. Steam has integrated itself as an excellent option for most publishers to publish through for the PC as it is their DRM, so they don't have to spend money on that, it distributes the game itself, so they need no money for that, it handles patches for the games and updates and DLC, so no money needs to be spent on that, and the don't need to pay to run Steam's servers. They just let Steam take some of their profits, and half their expenses disappear. This is why there would not be an individual platform for each publisher. Steam just makes things easier.

Triple-A titles and other expensive productions would never, ever be so cheap in sales. And DRM policies would be far worse than what's hammering the PC market today.

PC games, excluding MMO's, have all of their their benefits because of the console market.

And this is where you are wrong.
PC has its benefits because of its own environment;
As digital distribution is very strong on the PC, publishers can sell games with no overhead on distribution, and earn a profit from 50c. Or they can sell them for $60 and earn a lot more profit, and drop it down to $10 for a sale to bring in a boat load of additional customers when it starts to sell poorly. You can't do that on a console because of the physical medium. Physical disks cost money to transport, make, store and sell. That is added onto console game costs. As is a 'tax' for when that game is sold second hand - its factored into the original game's price whereas PC doesn't have to worry about that. Why do console digital downloads not have outrageous sales? Because Gamestop would stop selling new console games, only second hand, and cut publishers completely out of the deal there, cutting their profits massively. This doesn't happen on PC as the PC gamestop section sells 80% Steam vouchers, and is small anyway - PC is mostly DD. This is why there are cheap games and sales on PC, not because consoles earn enough money for publishers.
DRM policies are not worse than they are currently as publishers know PC players will not buy their games if they make them worse. Diablo III, Sim City - sold well initially on hype, now they'll be crashing and burning with few sales thanks to their DRM and poor quality. Bioshock Infinite? Sold well initially on hype, and will continue to sell fairly well and be able to sell DLC effectively thanks to its only DRM being Steam. If publishers put terrible DRM on their games, gamers will just buy other games - whether from other major publishers, or from indie developers, or they may even illegally acquire them if possible. This is why PC games rarely have terrible DRM - they wouldn't sell, and Steam does DRM that consumers accept too, so no need to pump more money into DRM when there's another viable option.
Modding, Unique genres of games, better performance and graphics - none of these are affected by consoles either. You claim to talk about a hypothetical PC only world, but you don't seem to understand the PC world as it is at the moment. Honestly, I'd be more scared about a console-only world where MS and Sony control everything and can milk consumers for every last cent if they want than a PC only world where there is always another option available. Of course, such a dystopian gaming future would never actually occur as publishers would quickly realise that they were on their way to another great crash like that in '83 when people stopped buying their games.

 

[Rellik San]

Harken back to the context of my quote. Gaming PC or gaming rig. Gaming PC, be it laptop, or pre-built, should run you up at least $1000.

Gaming rig obviously means that you can upgrade for the sake of visual performance. I don't think it's very cool to build a rig and only get meager settings.

You have great points, and I have considered all of them myself for the possibility of going PC; but the problem is that I wouldn't actually that content, since license to the software is only leased to me, and not the game itself.

And that's a deal breaker. Every time I've been tempted to build or buy something truly spec worthy, I realize that I will not be able to play my content without someone else's permission.

You know you can build a very capable PC for a few hundred bucks right?

Hell my processor is 7 years old and still pretty much runs anything I throw at it with ease, my graphics card was about $90 and I can play the majority of games on high settings, it's not as expensive as you'd think.

And whilst true enough with the licensing thing, the same could be said of Console games. Do you truly own the game? Sure you own the physical media it's stored upon, but can you modify the games content to your hearts content? No you can't, so you can't even really say you own the game.

Hell, all games come with a EULA, it's just on consoles you find it located within the manual not on the installation screen.

 

[Amir Kondori]

There is no might about it, it will definitely come out on PC, that easily represents over 1 million sales for them on that platform alone, for a game already complete they won't pass up that extra money, extra chances at selling DLC, etc. It will just be a matter of time.

I need to work on my sarcasm.
Typically, when I see a PC port from Rockstar, it's littered with bugs, poor coding and bad controls.

They're definitely going to go ahead with a port, if only because Rockstar has been hurting for cash in recent years.
I'm just not that stoked about it yet.

For me the story isn't that sad, as there is a glut of awesome games out on PC. I literally do not have enough time to play all the games I want to. There are games I own that I am pretty sure I will never have the time to play through. So timed console exclusives like this don't bug me at all.

I can barely find much that interests me, honestly. Or rather, there's a bunch of stuff I'm looking forward to, but they all just keep hiding in the nebulous realm of "Coming Soon" or keep getting pushed back.

My summer games list has been...Warframe Beta, Shadowrun Returns...and that's it.

If you can't find games that interest you then you are not looking hard enough.

Games I have had the time to play this year:
More Skyrim, Dawn of War 2, Hotline Miami, Shadow Warrior re-release, Torchlight 2, Super Hexagon (PC version), Kerbal Space Program, Fallout 3&NV, Dungeons of Dredmor, L4D2, Eador Master of the Broken World, Mount and Blade, Borderlands 2, Gun Point, King's Bounty, Jamestown, Bioshock Infinite, Rayman Origins and Gunpoint. I am sure I am forgetting some.

There are many other games I have purchased and want to play but haven't had the time. Titles like The Swapper, Sword of the Stars: The Pit, Thomas Was Alone, Sins of a Solar Empire, Civilization V, Saints Row the Third, Total War 2 Shogun, Fez, Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, Fallen Enchantress, Evil Genius, Dungeon Defenders, Crusader King's II, A Valley Without Wind 2, Zeno Clash 2, and I could go on but I don't want to make this post too crazy long.

Those are just games from my Steam library. There is a bunch of stuff from GOG.com I haven't had the time to touch. There are so many great games today available on PC that it should be impossible to go without a good game.

 

[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.

Not really. This is the definition of casuals I'm familiar with. If you meant something else, it wasn't clear enough.

Looks like you're just going to repeat yourself instead of making any arguments, so I'm ending this conversation.

That's because you haven't actually read much of this thread. All of your points were made in earlier posts that I commented on; and as I'm not allowed to re-post, you have to go back to the first page and read the conversation.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Harken back to the context of my quote. Gaming PC or gaming rig. Gaming PC, be it laptop, or pre-built, should run you up at least $1000.

Gaming rig obviously means that you can upgrade for the sake of visual performance. I don't think it's very cool to build a rig and only get meager settings.

You have great points, and I have considered all of them myself for the possibility of going PC; but the problem is that I wouldn't actually that content, since license to the software is only leased to me, and not the game itself.

And that's a deal breaker. Every time I've been tempted to build or buy something truly spec worthy, I realize that I will not be able to play my content without someone else's permission.

You know you can build a very capable PC for a few hundred bucks right?

Hell my processor is 7 years old and still pretty much runs anything I throw at it with ease, my graphics card was about $90 and I can play the majority of games on high settings, it's not as expensive as you'd think.

And whilst true enough with the licensing thing, the same could be said of Console games. Do you truly own the game? Sure you own the physical media it's stored upon, but can you modify the games content to your hearts content? No you can't, so you can't even really say you own the game.

Hell, all games come with a EULA, it's just on consoles you find it located within the manual not on the installation screen.

Let's be honest, you and I know that licensing and disk based ownership are nothing alike, because at the end of the day, you have to verify your purchase over and again -- registering the software (two or three times even), or logging into an account.

That's just too much work; and as I consider gaming to be hassle free, then much like a novel, I should be able to plop down on a couch, slip the disk in and be on my happy way.

(What the hell do I care about modding; that's another topic altogether.)

And as for building a PC, my first post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.825163-Update-GTA-V-Coming-to-PC-Says-Nvidia#20010785] contextualizes all of this fallout. PC building can have nothing to do with Gaming. They can be two different hobbies, you know.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Desktops will be non-existance for most of the first world countries in three years.

I enjoyed the conversation you folks were having until I got to this. Holy tin foil hat...

Adorable. :3

Anyway, I suppose I'll just wait and see on this game. I didn't get into GTA IV as much as I thought I would. I don't think I ever even beat it, so hopefully GTA V will reanimate some of my interest back into the franchise.

In cased you missed it, here's why. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.825163-Update-GTA-V-Coming-to-PC-Says-Nvidia#20010785]

 

[TAdamson]

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

Then change the headline on your website, for pity's sake.

The headline is now completely misinforming. Why is it still as it is?