Why do you guys bother with PC gaming?

[GaiaHunter]

Carmack says consoles are easier, so maybe the role of why things are the way they are is more likely rooted from the development end.

Doesn't the majority of the console games run at 30 fps? And at 720p at that?

 

[rchiu]

If 100 new consumers buy 18 desktop PCs, 44 buy laptops and the rest buy smartphones and tablets, that's a decrease in growth of desktop PC that used to sell 45 new desktop PCs to 100 new consumers just 3 years ago. Using your definition of growth, you can never have negative growth. Declining growth means that less desktop PCs are going to be purchased than last year. Even if this forecast by Forrester research is way off, the social trends all point to less and less people caring about desktop PCs.

As new people are born, the share of desktop PCs over the entire market will dwindle until it reaches single digits. Unless desktop PCs reinvent themselves, 100 new people born this hour and the next hour and the next hour will buy less and less desktop PCs when they grow up, making this market segment primarily a workstation/server/heavy computation-based/hardcore gamer platform only.

The glamour behind desktop PCs has faded.

Owning a desktop today means:

- Higher power consumption in a world where everyone is trying to become more eco-friendly;
- Buying a device that no longer fits the world's lifestyle changes. Students can't take desktops to school. Being tied to your desk, house, in a world where people travel more, telecommute, and employers allow employees to work anywhere.
- Buying a device that is no longer trendy: Ask kids today what devices they want: laptops, tablets, smartphones, consoles. Almost none of them want a desktop.

You no longer represent the new generation of consumers that drives market trends. Most of us desktop PC gamers are stuck in the past, in an era where performance was the most important factor. The new generation of consumers wants trendy mobile devices. Even if you and I prefer gaming on the PC is irrelevant since we now represent a shrinking market niche that I spoke earlier about. Over time, unless the trend is reversed, the desktop PC is going to become more and more specialized for people who really need/want the extra processing power. For everyone else, laptops, tablets, smartphones will be fast enough and good enough to perform 99% of all their tasks.

For most people in 5-10 years from now (and even today), it already doesn't make any sense to buy a desktop PC. They'd much rather get a laptop/tablet/smartphone + console for games. This is because if you buy a desktop, you can't work anywhere outside your house. In today's global economy, with laptops powerful enough for everything but heavy computation and games, the importance of desktop PCs is diminishing greatly. PCs are like "trains/trucks" of the global economy while the majority of the world will soon be driving cars (laptops/tablets/smartphones).

The reason this transition didn't happen sooner was because most mobile devices even 3-5 years ago were simply not good enough. We are going to see an accelerated transition to mobile devices, which means if people who own a desktop today are going to buy a laptop, they are never going to bother with a desktop again. Once that consumer gets a laptop, chances are they'll find out it's good enough for 99% of everything they do, while giving them an unbeatable advantage of convenience and portability.

If by 2020, we'll be able to purchase 85 inch 33 megapixel TVs and have consoles fast enough to drive those, then the desktop PC will have even less and less advantages over consoles. Right now, I wish we could buy a 2560x1600 24 inch PC monitor for $199-299. But even now, to get an amazing PC desktop experience, it costs $1200+ to get a 2560x1600 30 inch LCD......that's not helping.

On the other hand, consumers today can easily get a 59-60 inch plasma TV for $1000 and be easily immersed in a screen 2x the size! What most PC gamers haven't realized is that for a lot of people, gaming on a 1080P 60 inch TV is more satisfying than gaming on a 30 inch 2560x1600 LCD monitor. And yet, that same 30 inch PC screen now costs more than a 60 inch plasma. Now imagine going out and buying a 60 inch plasma for $1000 and a $1000+ 30 inch PC monitor. Most people aren't going to do that.

The current generation of console gamers are going to replace their 360/ps3 and wii with next generation of consoles and continue to game on larger TV screens. As each new generation of kids are born and are drawn towards smartphones/tablets/laptops and consoles, the importance of desktop PCs will continue to dwindle, even if the desktop PC market grows slightly. I am not saying that PC gaming is going to die. I am saying that for most developers, the mobile gaming market segment is going to grow exponentially; and that's where development $$ will go.

Less than a month away from 2012, I can't think of any "big" exclusive PC gams to come out next year outside of Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 expansion. Already now, the year 2012 on the PC doesn't look very promising. You said it yourself, you see no reason to upgrade your GTX260.

Desktop will still have it's place and in fact, there is a strong possibility that notebook will be replaced by mobile devices like tablet and smart phones. Netbook is pretty much done already for example.

Computer/desktop will have it's place in homes, people use it for professional work, education, managing finances, or just for fun (not just games, but geeks like us doing tech stuff- virtualization, server stuff..etc ). Sure there is a trend to do lots of those on laptops, but as I have quickly realized, you don't need do those things anytime, all the time. My mobile computing needs are limited to quick info searches, surf, a few online activities and some reading. Things can be done on tablets and smart phones. I rarely do the heavy hitting/work on the move, unless I am in special situation like in school or doing consulting. So for most people, an idea setup would be a mobile device to bring along, and a pc at home. Laptop is still just too big and too troublesome for everywhere/quick lookup type of computing need. And if you use it at home, it's a bit more expensive, a bit more limited compare to desktop.

So I am not sure about your theory that desktop will be replaced by mobile devices and laptop. There is a strong possibility (of course neither of us have crystal balls and all we can offer is a guess about future) that device will specialize and real portable device like tablet or phones will take care of the mobile computing need, and pc/desktop will handle the heavy hitting computing need that people won't need everywhere, all the time. And laptop will be for people like students and consultants who need to bring work to classes/clients.

In that sense, a lot of people will still have a desktop at home. It will still be an essential tool for everyday living and multiple applications. For example, try consolidate your movies/music on console or laptop, hook it up to projector and high end sound system. Yes that's specialized computing need, but the beauty is computer can be and is used in so many different special need situations.

So bottom line is, people will have pc. It is more essential than a one dimensional equipment like console. If people already have pc/desktop, and unless the person needs to run 200 fps with ultra resolution and all the eye candies, a mid level graphic card in most modern pc will handle most people's gaming need. So if you already have the pc, why go else where?

That's why pc will always have it's place in gaming.

 

[HeXen]

Doesn't the majority of the console games run at 30 fps? And at 720p at that?

whats that gotta do with what the man said? no point in questioning someone like Carmack unless you know more about 3d engineering than him.

That's why pc will always have it's place in gaming.

2nd place like its always been...but yes a place.

 

[GaiaHunter]

whats that gotta do with what the man said? no point in questioning someone like Carmack unless you know more about 3d engineering than him.

Your quote says that it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than pc. It might be, but than why don't console games actually run at 30 fps?

I might not know about 3d programming, but I have a Msc, so I have enough science background to understand concepts.

Most likely that quote is a poor representation of what he was tryng to say, but if someones tell me it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than with a PC hardware , the first quetion I would ask him is why then don't developers develope console games at 60 fps for consoles?

Doesn't seem that easy if the large majority of developers doesn't, while most games will run at 30 fps @720p.

So if a statment is denied by reality, I'll question it.

What is the context of that quote?

 

[Blitzvogel]

Your quote says that it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than pc. It might be, but than why don't console games actually run at 30 fps?

I might not know about 3d programming, but I have a Msc, so I have enough science background to understand concepts.

Most likely that quote is a poor representation of what he was tryng to say, but if someones tell me it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than with a PC hardware , the first quetion I would ask him is why then don't developers develope console games at 60 fps for consoles?

Doesn't seem that easy if the large majority of developers doesn't, while most games will run at 30 fps @720p.

So if a statment is denied by reality, I'll question it.

What is the context of that quote?

Consoles are limited mostly by their GPUs, hence the 30 FPS/720p standard. PCs are not as badly limited here, but for so many modern games, the CPU is the issue because it's stuck making so many DX calls and running abstraction layers. You then have to think about the porting issue where code is not going to be as well optimized for the x86 + DX + Windows environment. GTA4 is our grand example of that. Even still, graphics processing tends to come first in the line of bottlenecks when running decently modern dual core processors and a healthy amount of RAM. A quad core is pretty much necessary for modern games if you expect a consistent 60 FPS throughout the experience.

 

[HeXen]

Your quote says that it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than pc. It might be, but than why don't console games actually run at 30 fps?

I might not know about 3d programming, but I have a Msc, so I have enough science background to understand concepts.

Most likely that quote is a poor representation of what he was tryng to say, but if someones tell me it is easier to keep 60 fps at consoles than with a PC hardware , the first quetion I would ask him is why then don't developers develope console games at 60 fps for consoles?

Doesn't seem that easy if the large majority of developers doesn't, while most games will run at 30 fps @720p.

So if a statment is denied by reality, I'll question it.

What is the context of that quote?

and why would you ask me that? i'm not Carmack. watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hapCuhAs1nA

also google john carmack interviews and get all kinds of insight to various things

 

[GaiaHunter]

and why would you ask me that? i'm not Carmack. watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hapCuhAs1nA

also google john carmack interviews and get all kinds of insight to various things

He didn't exactly said it is easier to keep 60 fps on consoles than PC - he says that the xbox 360 allows him much more control over the memory, allowing him to access the memory and change a particular texture much quicker than on the PC, due to the fact it needs to go through DX9 and the GPU drivers.

For example he also complains about the Cell processor of the PS3 and how that limits him compared to the xbox360.

Of course they also spend much more resources to optimize for the consoles, since the PC has so much more raw power, the game can just be unoptimized for it, run at more demanding settings and probably play no worse.

For example and replying to NUSNA_Moebius, Rage doesn't really require a quad-core.

 

[HeXen]

He didn't exactly said it is easier to keep 60 fps on consoles than PC -

he said exactly what i quoted in another interview. not the video i linked.
the video is just one i quickly linked cause it pertains to consoles, This is where the quote comes from. take it however you want and leave me be about it for gods sake. damn can't even quote someone without being questioned to death
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/


So yes, he said exactly as i quoted copied and pasted from one of many transcripts of his many interviews

 

[GaiaHunter]

he said exactly what i quoted in another interview. not the video i linked.
the video is just one i quickly linked cause it pertains to consoles, This is where the quote comes from. take it however you want and leave me be about it for gods sake. damn can't even quote someone without being questioned to death
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/


So yes, he said exactly as i quoted copied and pasted from one of many transcripts of his many interviews

First, i didn't questioned you directly, you simply chose to see it that way-

Second, you also said that Carmack said it was easier to program to consoles than to PCs - he doesn't say that.

Third, Carmack also says:

“The driver issues have been a real clusterfuck,” according to Carmack, talked about how the developer had worked closely with both nVidia and ATI prior to the games release, and how the game had run without a hitch on their own test systems.

When asked why the studio opted to design the game for consoles rather than the PC, Carmack provided with a response he knows will make PC gamers unhappy.

“We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games,” said John Carmack, as he explained the company’s reasons for focusing Rage’s development on consoles.

"That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it. Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."

 

[mattdallastx]

Battlefield 3 and Skyrim (on ps3 & xbox 360. I've played both titles on both systems) are perfect examples of what happens when you cram a PC game into a console. Both games run at 28 -32 fps MAX (720p) depending on how much is going on. As a dedicated PC gamer, I find this frame rate to be choppy and unstable. < my 2 CENTS


BTW - I am fully aware that MW3 runs @ 58-60 fps on colsoles. on a six year old engine.....

________
COOLER MASTER HAF X RC-942-KKN1 Full Tower Computer Case
CORSAIR H70 Core High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GHz LGA 1366 Six-Core Desktop Processor
CORSAIR DOMINATOR GT 24GB (6 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000) memory
CORSAIR Pro Series Gold AX1200 watt power supply SLI Certified 80 PLUS GOLD Certified
ASUS Rampage III Extreme LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
LG Black Blu-ray Drive
(2)EVGA SuperClocked 015-P3-1582-TR GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB in SLI (Accelero XTREME Plus aftermarket coolers !!!!!)
Crucial 256gb SSD sata III 6gb/sec
Western Digital Caviar Black 1.5 gb sata III 6gb/sec
(2) Western Digital Caviar Blue 500gb - striped RAID
Microsoft Windows 7 Pro

 

[AdamK47]

Doesn't Rage automatically scale the graphics to maintain 60 FPS regardless of what settings you tweak and use? That would make benchmark results rather pointless.

 

[taltamir]

Battlefield 3 and Skyrim (on ps3 & xbox 360. I've played both titles on both systems) are perfect examples of what happens when you cram a PC game into a console. Both games run at 28 -32 fps MAX (720p) depending on how much is going on. As a dedicated PC gamer, I find this frame rate to be choppy and unstable. < my 2 CENTS

Those are "console first" games. The PC version is merely a port.
Well... the original engine way back when was PC, but it was ported to consoles and consoels were the primary development for it since then. Looking at the games on the PC there are a bunch a bunch of tell tale signs clealy showing it to be a console port.

Unless you mean they are "PC level in terms of quality" aka "too complex for such bad hardware"... and from what I hear a ton of modern games don't get stable frame rates on those aging consoles.

 

[jacktesterson]

I just sold my most recent gaming PC (2500k, 580, etc)

Will be buying a gaming notebook soon

 

[mattdallastx]

Unless you mean they are "PC level in terms of quality" aka "too complex for such bad hardware"... and from what I hear a ton of modern games don't get stable frame rates on those aging consoles.

Battlefield 3 was said to be primarily designed for PC. I guess I should have said "game's so thick, that they will only run properly on qualified PC's."

____________
COOLER MASTER HAF X RC-942-KKN1 Full Tower Computer Case
CORSAIR H70 Core High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GHz LGA 1366 Six-Core Desktop Processor
CORSAIR DOMINATOR GT 24GB (6 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000) memory
CORSAIR Pro Series Gold AX1200 watt power supply SLI Certified 80 PLUS GOLD Certified
ASUS Rampage III Extreme LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
LG Black Blu-ray Drive
(2)EVGA SuperClocked 015-P3-1582-TR GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB in SLI (Accelero XTREME Plus aftermarket coolers !!!!!)
Crucial 256gb SSD sata III 6gb/sec
Western Digital Caviar Black 1.5 gb sata III 6gb/sec
(2) Western Digital Caviar Blue 500gb - striped RAID
Microsoft Windows 7 Pro

 

[RussianSensation]

14&#37; * 3.4M + (7.5M - 3.4M) = 4.576M PC sales * 60$ = 274.56 M
27% * 3.4M = 0.918M PS3 sales * 60$ = 55.08 M
59% * 3.4M = 2.006M xbox sales * 60$ = 120.36 M

I understand why you made this assumption, but that's not what the article says. 7 million games were shipped, while about 50% of those sold at launch. That does not mean that the remaining were all for digital distribution (in fact, how do you "ship" a Digital copy?). I am not sure your assumption makes sense. For example, you can have 40-50% of unsold physical copies sitting in inventory on launch week since they are ready to meet sales in the next weeks following launch to alleviate any possible supply shortages. That would be no different than Blackberry "shipping 1 million" Playbooks for sale in the channel but only selling 300,000 units and then having to sell the remaining 700k units (or in RIMs case do a fire sale). You can't just assume that 50% of unsold 'shipped' units were related to digital distribution channels. Instead, you clumped all of those inventory units as digital sales for the PC only....

More importantly, not once, have you admitted that consoles have any good games worth playing, or that they have any games that are ranked 9 or above. That makes me question if you really just hate consoles and console games or have a strong aversion against them.

You even dismiss the arguments made by many people (and within the industry) that developers reap major profits from console games. Now you can say that EPIC ruined Unreal series and so on, but that's irrelevant. The fact is EPIC has done extremely well for itself on consoles, which means whether it's easier to find a target market among console gamers, whether it's easier to make a title that appeals to a wider audience, whether PC gamers are more picky when it comes to games, all of these factors do not change the fact that it's MUCH more difficult to make $$ on the PC (unless you happen to be Blizzard, something I've repeated 10x prob.).

You also pretty much ignored my post that showed console franchise games demolishing PC game sale franchisee sales (outside of Blizzard). While SKYRIM did well on the PC, it's not a premier franchise for console gamers. So in this particular case, we should expect a game that many PC gamers have anticipated for years to do reasonably well against console sales, and thankfully, it did.

However, SKYRIM is one of the top 3 games released for the PC this year (if not a game of the year material). What about the rest? It's interesting how you ignore that successful console franchisees sell 50-100 million copies. The only PC franchisees that have any chance against this are Blizzard's games (Starcraft series) and the Sims series.

Look at Far Cry 3, "Press A" to untangle yourself from the ropes. All they are going to do is replace that with press a keyboard key, maybe up some graphical settings on the PC, but it'll also be just another console port.

All these games, Mass Effect 3, Prototype 2, Max Payne 3, etc. are all going to be cross-platform. 2012 is so far shaping up to be missing a powerhouse PC exclusive gaming title that isn't called Starcraft 2 or Diablo. Perhaps Borderlands 2 in Q4 2012.

Either way you look at it, developers are prioritizing PC game development less and less. If it wasn't for the stunning 2560x1440 / 2560x1600, Eyefinity options, PC game mods, then PC games would even lose their graphics advantages over consoles. Luckily for us PC gamers, we still have DX11 to brag about but even that advantage will be eroded shortly once next generation of consoles ship.

Starcraft 2 (one of the most successful RTS games on the PC in recent years, which took a decade to develop), sold 3 million copies in the first month of release (July 2010). Then it took another 6 months for the game to sell an additional 1.5 million copies, totalling 4.5 million by December 2010. That's a premier PC game right there.

In contrast, MW3 (barely any different from MW2 and BO), sold 9.2 million, just on the Xbox 360 in 4 weeks. In fact, MW3 sold 5.7 million copies on the Xbox 360 in the first week, more than Starcraft II sold since launch date.

Am I sad to see a crappy MW3 game selling more copies in 1 week than SC2 in its lifetime so far? You bet I am. But if I was a developer, that would open my eyes as to how profitable console gaming is if you can put out a hit title. On the PC, you need to make pretty much to make a 9.0+ game to even dream about hitting 5 million copies. On consoles, you can hit 5 million with a 7.5 game no problem.

 

[taltamir]

Battlefield 3 was said to be primarily designed for PC. I guess I should have said "game's so thick, that they will only run properly on qualified PC's."

From what I am told, BF3 doesn't run on PCs either... its got a really crappy engine for handling the internet and it has horrible unplayble lag as a result.

That's not what the article says. 7 million games were shipped

Instead, you clumped all of those inventory units as digital sales for the PC only....good one!

No it doesn't, try actually reading.

Article 1: 3.4 million RETAIL COPIES sold.
Article 2: 450 million $ gross sales.

Cost was 60$ per copy for both PC and Console, at 60$ a copy simple algebra shows that 450 million / 60 = 7.5 million, aka 7.5 million sales total.
Which means of the 7.5 total sales only 3.4 million were retail and the other 4.1 million were digital distribution.
The only alternative to retail is digitial distribution. The only method of digital distribution for skyrim is for the PC.

 

[tigerbalm]

Consoles vs PC's is like apples to oranges. They both serve different consumers and gamers!
Consoles are great for:
1. Family games with 2 people, easy to use, no patches, no BSOD, etc.
2. Relatively inexpensive to own up front - other than $60 games (just released titles).
3. Easy to store, low power usage, media center device, reliable unless RROD!
4. Great wireless controllers and wheels (I only race on my Xbox360 wheel/50 in Plasma, home-made racing chair, sound through home stereo 5.1).

PC's are great for:
1. Work at home- CAD, e-mail, photoshop, word, excel, video editing, MP3 ripping, skype, online streaming, yada yada yada...
2. A hobby that's fun, learning, helping family and friends build/fix problems. There is so much to learn so your mind is challenged with every new technology.
3. Performance/experience is far greater potential than consoles! I only play at 1080P, but 720p is good too.
4. PC is here to stay, despite what they say! Why? Because it's a big world wide industry of parts, software, jobs, creativity, R&D, innovations that will also make a better console, laptop, touch pad...
5. A gaming PC can do just about everything and also play the big games in 1080P or higher. Sure it can be expensive, but you can "choose" how much it costs and at what level of performance. I just sold my GTX 460 & Q6600 system to pay for upgrades to a i5-2500k/GTX 560 (SLI later) 8 GB DDR3, win 7 64 bit that ended up costing me less than $300 out of pocket (after 3 years).
6. I only buy several new release games and pick up others on sale later. There are a lot of free software i.e. anti virus, fire wall, etc to maintain a healthy PC. Improved drivers are important, as well as OS/app updates!
7. Online browsing w/PC is very useful for purchasing, banking, e-mail, memberships, news, of course Youtube! I've learned so much about so many topics that I wouldn't know how it would possible without a PC! With a fast broadband, online gaming (as well as pron, movie streaming, DL'ing stuff, etc) is next to Heaven!
I probably can go on about the advantages of the PC, but it would take more typing and thought! But I hope this helps put things in perspective. I am an enthusiast and don't have a lot to spend on PC's, but I do look for the "best bang" when it comes to upgrades and over-clocking! Those who can spend $3k for a gaming rig, I envy you, but not jealous at all. I have a ton of fun trying to keep up. Maybe we'll play on the same server in MW3 or BF3 some day and have a ton of fun regardless of what PC you have!

 

[RussianSensation]

No it doesn't, try actually reading.

Article 1: 3.4 million RETAIL COPIES sold.
Article 2: 450 million $ gross sales.

Nowhere in any of the information you provided does it say that 7 million shipped units earned $450 million in sales, of which only 3.4 million were retail units. You just made that up because you couldn't explain the missing information.

I know exactly how to read, and I also know how to do additional research if I am missing information as opposed to "filling in the blanks in missing information to adapt my agenda". In your case, it was better to make up the digital distribution argument because it supported your pro-PC agenda.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...the-elder-scrolls-v-shipments-top-7-million/1

"Publisher Bethesda Softworks announced 7 million copies of the action role-playing game were shipped to retailers following its launch on Nov. 11. More than half of launch units were scooped up by consumers, and the game is expected to rake in more than $450 million in global launch sales."

Cost was 60$ per copy for both PC and Console, at 60$ a copy simple algebra shows that 450 million / 60 = 7.5 million, aka 7.5 million sales total.Which means of the 7.5 total sales only 3.4 million were retail and the other 4.1 million were digital distribution.
The only alternative to retail is digitial distribution.

The real math is 7 million retail units grossing $450 million. That amounts to about $60 per game, give or take. The remaining 50&#37; of unsold 7 million units are retail inventory still waiting to be sold to met future demand. We have no information on what the digital sales are.

Now your entire argument that SKYRIM sold better on PCs fell apart because you magically added 4 million extra sales to the PC platform when in fact they were retail game units across 3 platforms (PC, 360 and PS3).

Now what?

 

[blastingcap]

Nowhere in any of the information you provided does it say that 7 million shipped units earned $450 million in sales, of which only 3.4 million were retail units. You just made that up because you couldn't explain the missing information.

I know exactly how to read, and I also know how to do additional research if I am missing information as opposed to "filling in the blanks in missing information to adapt my agenda". In your case, it was better to make up the digital distribution argument because it supported your pro-PC agenda.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...the-elder-scrolls-v-shipments-top-7-million/1

"Publisher Bethesda Softworks announced 7 million copies of the action role-playing game were shipped to retailers following its launch on Nov. 11.

More than half of launch units were scooped up by consumers, and the game is expected to rake in more than $450 million in global launch sales."

The real math is 7 million retail units grossing $450 million. That amounts to about $60 per game, give or take. We have no information on what the digital sales are. The remaining 50&#37; of unsold 7 million units are retail inventory.

Now your entire argument that SKYRIM sold better on PCs fell apart; and that is one of the premier games on the PC in 2011.

Now what?

The famous "shipped" vs. "sold" distinction. Then there is the question of whether $450 million is calculated with the $60 assumption, and if so, that doesn't jibe with reality where people often get pre-order discounts or elsewhere. Lastly, I would reiterate that some publishers of dubious ethics will claim "included with graphics card purchase" games as games shipped, further muddying the waters.

All of the above is just revenue to somebody. Game devs don't necessarily see much of that revenue, so even if we got a very good lock on what the revenue numbers are, we still don't know about the dev costs and what revenue they got to offset it.

Paragraph 9 strategy still stands, in any case. Don't turn down free or low-cost revenue if you can help it.

 

[taltamir]

expected to rake in more than $450 million in global launch sales

Ugh, stupid misleading titles...
Ok EXPECTED sales of 450 million. Not actual sales. That is a pretty big difference.

Now your entire argument that SKYRIM sold better on PCs fell apart

No, now we go from knowing that skyrim massively outsold everything on the PC to having no idea unless we find out how many digital sales there were.

Now what?

I don't follow you... what what?

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't follow you... what what?

There is a big difference now. You admitted that other cross-platform games sold better on consoles than on the PC. But you still said this:

Clearly the PC is lagging behind on those games, unlike in skyrim where it is just dominated by the PC.

The way it is now is:

14&#37; of 3.4 Million retail units were PC sales, with remaining retail units (of total 7 million) accounting for the unsold portion of retail units.

Assuming the remaining 3.6 million unsold units will have similar % preferences among consumers, it is not unreasonable to expect the remaining 3.6 million copies of SKYRIM to sell a similar 14-15% distribution to the PC platform.

That would mean on the PC, SKYRIM, only sold 14-15% of the total 7 million retail units. So which platform is more important for this game? Not the PC.

Takeaways:

1) Unless the digital sales are at least another 5-6 million on the PC, then the PC platform will sell a lot less units of SKYRIM than it will on consoles.

2) SKYRIM, being one of the most premier titles on the PC is the "best case scenario" for the PC. And even this 9.5+ game will sell more units on console sales. What does that leave for the other PC game developers who can't make a game as good as SKYRIM and don't go multi-platform? They have no chance unless they are small indie developers trying to make a name for themselves, with hopes to eventually go multi-platform anyway.

3) Even if in the future the PC eventually sells 4-5 million digital copies, SKYRIM will drop to $19.99-29.99 on STEAM within 12-15 months, significantly reducing profitability for the developer. Expect $14.99 deal on SKYRIM by the holiday season of next year.

4) SKYRIM is just another perfect example that if you want to make a lot of $, you have to go cross-platform since console sales are many times more than PC sales (unless you are Blizzard). Blastingcap outlined this strategy as Paragraph 9 strategy in his post. And we are seeing it in action with SKYRIM. In fact, SKYRIM PC sales are just a bonus for a game that was largely developed to sell well on consoles. Imho, the user interface was designed for console controllers in mind as opposed to the traditional keyboard and mouse setup. I still love SKYRIM, but I don't believe for a second that SKYRIM was developed for the PC in mind.

The way it is now, is that most games are designed for consoles in mind. And if you get Nvidia to throw millions of dollars, you might get specialized PhysX effects (Batman AC) or an extra layer of DX11 (Crysis). If it wasn't for that, and the guys at DICE not going out of their way to make BF3 special, or an occassional glitter of creativity like the ArMA series, the entire 2011 year would go down as another year of PC console ports. The real PC gems are all strategy and MMO games at this point. Everything else is pretty much all console ports.

I still game on the PC since I prefer keyboard and mouse for FPS / role-playing genre, but the desire to drop $800-900 on PC graphics is no longer there for me since I am just going to be maxing out console ported game engines in 95% of cases.....

I know a lot of people didn't like the fact that Doom 3, Far Cry 1, Crysis 1 killed their graphics and they needed to wait a generation or even 2 to get those games playable at max settings, I loved that about the PC at the time. I wish we got a game like Crysis at least once a year.

Even BF3 has to resort to somewhat efficient 4x MSAA implementation to bring modern videocards to their knees. Without 4x MSAA, modern cards such as 6970 and GTX570/580 can easily max this game out at 1080P. That was NOT the case for top of the line cards when Doom 3, Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 came out. Back then, you were lucky to get 15-20 fps in those games with your $500 graphics card.

 

[mattdallastx]

From what I am told, BF3 doesn't run on PCs either... its got a really crappy engine for handling the internet and it has horrible unplayble lag as a result.

My PC experience has been AMAZING with BF3 Maxxed settings at a stead 61-62 fps. Oh, and I usually dont join low latency servers.

If you build a stable system and keep your drivers updated, PC gaming can be a very VERY rewarding hobbie.


__________
COOLER MASTER HAF X RC-942-KKN1 Full Tower Computer Case
CORSAIR H70 Core High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GHz LGA 1366 Six-Core Desktop Processor
CORSAIR DOMINATOR GT 24GB (6 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000) memory
CORSAIR Pro Series Gold AX1200 watt power supply SLI Certified 80 PLUS GOLD Certified
ASUS Rampage III Extreme LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
LG Black Blu-ray Drive
(2)EVGA SuperClocked 015-P3-1582-TR GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB in SLI ( Accelero XTREME Plus aftermarket coolers )
Crucial 256gb SSD sata III 6gb/sec
Western Digital Caviar Black 1.5 gb sata III 6gb/sec
(2) Western Digital Caviar Blue 500gb - striped RAID
Microsoft Windows 7 Pro

 

[blastingcap]

Thanks for actually answering the question posed by the OP. We had gone a little far afield in this thread, heh.

I concur and enjoyed playing TF2 and L4D2 on Eyefinity and other games at higher settings that consoles are capable of.

I'd also like to reiterate that PC games are cheaper for those who were going to buy desktops anyway. My gf had an aging desktop which had a horrible graphics card. I advised her to get a GT 240 on sale for $40 after rebate, and voila, she could play stuff on her 1680x1050 monitor like Left4Dead2, Mass Effect, etc. FORTY dollars. Not $200+ for a console and Kinect/extra controllers/more expensive games than PC equivalents/etc.

That is why I "bother with PC gaming," as OP put it.

Also, my living space isn't suitable for lots of people playing MarioKart or SF2 or Rock Band or whatever, and I don't need Blu-Ray so can't justify a PS3 purchase based on that. If I want a console experience, I can go over to friends' places instead.

My PC experience has been AMAZING with BF3 Maxxed settings at a stead 61-62 fps. Oh, and I usually dont join low latency servers.

If you build a stable system and keep your drivers updated, PC gaming can be a very VERY rewarding hobbie.

 

[dust]

My PC experience has been AMAZING with BF3 Maxxed settings at a stead 61-62 fps. Oh, and I usually dont join low latency servers.

If you build a stable system and keep your drivers updated, PC gaming can be a very VERY rewarding hobbie.

Best thing said yet!

 

[RussianSensation]

A few things I don't understand.

1) Why is multi platform a bad thing? After all PC is a myriad of platforms.

It is a good thing for developers. However, from a perspective of us PC gamers, it's not necessarily a good thing, especially right now. Who is going to design games that push the next generation physics and graphics effects when the majority of your sales are on consoles? You need to make sure the game is compatible with a large user base. Not many developers are willing to push the envelope and throw in advanced DX11 features on top of a DX9/10 engine (Crysis 2) or go out of their way to enhance the PC experience (Battlefield 3's multiplayer levels/# of players).

Multi-platform games by themselves are not bad. They allow developers to survive by making more $, but that also means lack of focus on PC exclusive titles outside of MMOs/RTS. It also means, most of the time our graphics cards are maxing out console ports.

2) How many of the best selling games/most waited games are exclusive to a single console?

Xbox360 has Alan Wake, Gears of War, Halo, Forza Motorsport, Project Gotham Racing.

PS3 in particular has a lot of exclusive franchisees like God of War, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Infamous, Killzone, Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Heavy Rain, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Uncharted, Motorstorm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_games

And that's not even taking into account console only games that we can't get on the PC such as Ninja Gaiden, Demon Souls, Heavy Rain, Tekken, Dead or Alive, etc.

And I didn't even touch Nintendo...

So among the 3 consoles that's quite a lot of games to miss out on if you like any of those genres.

3) Why isn't a laptop a pc?

It counts, I didn't say it doesn't. However, how much do you need to spend on a gaming PC laptop to play BF3 or Crysis 2? $1500-2000 vs. $200-300 it costs to buy a console. Limited appeal due to budget constraints. Although, I believe more and more people will start migrating from desktop PCs towards enthusiast laptops for games. But that's not necessarily adding a lot of "new" gamers into the mix, just a shifting of the type of devices they use to play PC games.

4) Why is the PC option spend xxx amount+monitor to have superior graphics instead of spending less to match console IQ and hook it to the TV?

Because for most people, in that case, it's just way easier to get a $200-400 console and hook it up to their TV. You can't build a PC for $400 today that will still allow you to play PC games in 3-4 years from now. That HD6870 graphics card will be utter slideshow in 4 years. Let's say you buy a next generation Xbox720 / Loop / PS4 for $400 in 2013, you have nothing to worry that it will play all the latest and greatest games even in 2018.

Also, the PC option of hooking up a $400 PC to the living room TV doesn't appeal to a lot of people. It clutters the living room and means if you need to do work outside of PC games, what are you going to do? If you need to do any type of work (students, etc.), you'd still need a laptop. How many people want to buy a desktop PC and a laptop? But once they buy a laptop, they see no reason to buy a $500+ desktop. Also, I am going on a limb and assuming most people are smart enough to buy a $500 desktop with the most bang for the buck HD6870 card. But as I said already, in reality most people have no idea how to build a $400-500 desktop without a monitor that can play games.

And I have no idea how to build a $500 desktop today that will play newer PC games in 3-5 years from now, because it's impossible. In 3-4 years, a $200 graphics card today will be a slideshow at 1080P.

5) Are people gonna stop using PCs at all?

Not sure what you mean by PCs in that statement. PC (Personal computing devices) may be defined as laptops/desktops/netbooks or extended to include smartphones and tablets too. If you consider PC in a traditional sense such as laptops and desktops only, then people will still use PCs, but shift towards laptops.

Walk into the Apple store. What do you see? A world centered around mobile devices: Laptops, tablets and smartphones, not desktops.

I already said that desktops will continue to be used in 3 specific scenarios, but the majority of new consumers will no longer be interested in desktops; meaning the option to upgrade their videocard in 2-3 years when it gets too slow isn't there to begin with.

6) 2 entire genres are pretty much exclusive to the PC and that isn't enough? What genre is exclusive to a single console? Or even to all consoles?

No, it's not enough for me imo. That's why I own a PC for genres that PC excels at and consoles for genres the consoles excel at. Also, I might as well play the best made games in the world, not only the best made games on the PC. But if you only think the PC has the best games and consoles don't have any games you are interested in, then there is no reason for you to buy a console. Fair enough.

The point was that if you remove RTS and MMOs from the PC, you just wipe out 50&#37; of all PC game centric revenue. Without those 2 genres, does the PC have enough to offer to stand alone as a gaming platform for people who can otherwise buy a console for $200-300? Basically, that goes to my point that people who don't care for RTS or MMO games, they can play a much larger variety of games on consoles without having to build a desktop. This is exactly why 300 million gamers chose to buy consoles instead.

7) Why are consoles becoming more and more like PCs?

Not sure I understand your question here. Consoles have always been PCs inside. They used ram, motherboards, cpus, gpus. If you mean consoles are become more and more multi-media centric devices, then Yes, they are becoming more well-rounded like the PC. But since consoles are becoming ever increasingly more powerful and much more capable media devices, while laptops are also becoming powerful enough for most people, the market for desktop PCs is getting smaller and smaller as a % of the entire market since desktop PCs are becoming a niche market segment for people who absolutely demand the highest performance, regardless of power efficiency or cost.

8) What happens when the CPU+GPU rivals a console, especially if that package comes in a mobile piece of hardware that you can take everywhere and play/work/surf the web and you can still arrive home drop it in front of the TV and use it as a console? 7 years is a long time, look at what you had as an iGP 7 years ago.

There is definitely a threat from mobile devices for consoles. More and more people are starting to play games on tablets/smartphones. Those aren't hardcore gamers, however. The new mobile social gaming and casual gaming scene will likely only get bigger this decade.

9) Again why are MMORPGs and Strategy games being excluded from the exclusive list? Because they are exclusive to the PC?

I only excluded them to highlight the fact that those 2 genres present unique advantages that the PC gaming platform offers. Those 2 genres drive at least 50% of PC sales annually, which makes the PC platform healthy. But if a gamer isn't interested in those genres, they no longer even need a laptop or a desktop for that matter. He/she can just grab a cheap console and start gaming racing, fighting, role-playing, FPS games, etc. Most PC games are available on consoles since most PC games are cross-platform. Why would that person spend $800-1000$ to go out and build a desktop?

I think a lot of us take for granted our hardware knowledge. Our hardware knowledge allows us to buy computer parts at more optimal prices and performance levels. The average consumer would need to spend $800-1,000+ to get a decent gaming desktop PC, without the monitor.

Also, a lot of people underestimate the simplicity that a console offers by just coming home after work to turn on a console and play a game in 20 seconds and the comfort of gaming on a couch in front of a large screen TV.

If most people thought that it was cheaper and better to build a desktop PC to hook up to their TV, then the console market wouldn't even exist. I don't agree, which is why I still have a desktop PC, but I certainly see console gamer's point of view.