The reason why 'PC' is neglected by DEVELOPERS

Status
Not open for further replies.
comp@ddict

comp@ddict

Galvanizer
Have a look guys, it all speaks for itself. <all retail>

Sales figures

BRINK

X360 - 397,163

PS3 - 147,878

PC - 31,168

Brink Sales

Portal 2

X360 - 808,511

PS3 - 570,027

PC - 124,731

Portal 2 Sales

Crysis 2 - I don't blame PC owners for this one

X360 - 793,392

PS3 - 541,746

PC - 193,531

Crysis 2 Sales

Battlefield Bad Company 2 - Was expecting more on PC for this one

X360 - 2,887,356

PS3 - 2,255,197

PC - 614,339

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Sales

Mass Effect

X360 - 2,319,117

PC - 395,760

Mass Effect Sales

Mass Effect 2

X360 - 2,392,756

PS3 - 418,241

PC - 168,798

Mass Effect 2 Sales

Dragon Age Origins

X360 - 2,056,887

PS3 - 1,253,201

PC - 391,800

Dragon Age Origins Sales

Fallout 3

X360 - 3,442,268

PS3 - 2,599,386

PC - 845,485

Fallout 3 Sales

Homefront

X360 - 1,131,127

PS3 - 560,453

PC - 95,804

Homefront Sales

GTA IV - Didn't expect this

X360 - 8,905,561

PS3 - 8,030,116

PC - 695,462

GTA IV Sales

NFS Hot Pursuit - Another shocker, sold less that Wii version(and Wii version looks YUCK!)

X360 - 1,643,676

PS3 - 1,814,060

Wii - 269,434

PC - 150,360

NFS Hot Pursuit Sales

F1 2010 - Didn't expect this either

X360 - 727,355

PS3 - 1,036,983

PC - 18,136

F1 2010 Sales

I know PC has a lotta digital sales, but that applies mostly for games like Valve's own, and looking at the poor PC sales, I don't blame developers that they don't want to develop with PC as primary platform.

But see it this way, unless they focus primarily on PC, PC gamers won't buy, and that is certain, but a game can always be scaled down to consoles, so console gamers will still get the same experience, albeit not at the pain of PC gamers.

Look at Battlefield 3 (the biggest example!), they are focusing on PC as the primary platform, and making a large scale all-out game that will tear our PCs apart(everybody hopes so, they like getting raped), and the game can then be easily scaled down to X360 and PS3 by reducing number of players(64 in PC, 24 in consoles), reducing texture sizes to miserable levels, reducing draw distance, removing anti-alias and anisotropic filtering, reducing post-process.

All this can be done, and yet console gamers will be happy cuz they are still getting the max for their console's worth. But I bet ya, PC sales for Battlefield 3, they are gonna beat everything else.

COD Black Ops may sell a lot on PS3 and X360, but BF3 on PC will make a comeback, I believe so, do you?
 
You do know that that doesn't have GOG, STEAM and all the other sites right?

And VGchartz is a pathetic website. I'd trust the indian gov more than VGchartz.

Check BC2 ingame, it has over 2.7 mil PC gamers.

Useless thread cause its meaningless.
 
wow..thats too low..is this for real?

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Hey BC2 sold more on PC than any other pLatform..Thats why bf3 is getting supreme priority from the devs for the Pc version..

These stats musbe BS..
 
Why don't you guys just accept that the consoles are a superior platform for gaming as far as accessibilty is concerned. If you are reading this post on this forum, you may consider yourself a member of an elite class of gamers i.e you are most likely tech-savy and know your way around things. Now, whats noteworthy is that you constitute a very small percentage of gamers overall. Gaming consoles are now a cultural phenomenon, every house has one. The obvious reason for its success is the ease of use. People aged 5 and above can just pop a DVD and enjoy a gaming session. These people do not care about superior graphics, high textures or higher framerates, they just enjoy playing a game and these people are in the majority among gamers. It is this kind of accesibilty that the PC can never offer. PC gaming is a niche market now, therefore it doesn't make any business sense to develop solely for PC. Rampant Piracy is another major factor for the dent in PC sales.

But why is all this a cause of worry? Almost all major titles are realeased for the PC and are in most cases superior to their console ports. In my opinion the success of consoles has only benifitted the PC gaming community. Not long ago both Nvidia and ATI were milking huge profits thanks to the gullible PC gamers who had to shell out insane amounts of money every now and then just to play the latest Gaming sensation. The birth of consoles was a blessing in disguise which not only opened new avenues for gaming enthusiasts but also started keeping the GPU companies in check. The result being, that today a 2 year old GPU can still flawlessly play latest games where some years ago a 40k card refused to give playble framerates just a year after its release.
 
I dont know if the numbers shown in this thread are true or false, but the fact is developers are not targetting pc as the major platform just because of intense piracy in pc games. Due to this piracy, most of the pc games have poor sales wheras the console counter part sales are lot better. If the companies cant make decent profit, why will they target pc platform?

Also, console gaming is more vfm than pc gaming, a gamer can buy a console and use it for 7-8 years with ease but in case of pc, we have to frequently update because the most powerful hardware becomes very ordinary within a couple of years.
 
In India most of the entry level gamers use PC just because they cannot afford Gaming Consoles such as PS3 or XBox 360, secondly they can buy a decent used or new graphic card according to their budget. Some families are against Gaming consoles.
 
Bluffmaster said:
But why is all this a cause of worry? Almost all major titles are realeased for the PC and are in most cases superior to their console ports. In my opinion the success of consoles has only benifitted the PC gaming community. Not long ago both Nvidia and ATI were milking huge profits thanks to the gullible PC gamers who had to shell out insane amounts of money every now and then just to play the latest Gaming sensation. The birth of consoles was a blessing in disguise which not only opened new avenues for gaming enthusiasts but also started keeping the GPU companies in check. The result being, that today a 2 year old GPU can still flawlessly play latest games where some years ago a 40k card refused to give playble framerates just a year after its release.
Click to expand...

That's called halting progress. Consoles may have made gaming more accessible, but they have also made publishers too lazy to strive for innovation. That is why a 2 year old GPU can play today's games flawlessly. I consider that as a bane, not a boon.

PC Gaming is not in such deep shite as is being made out here. There are some genres like strategy games which are not viable on consoles. And last time I checked, a PC exclusive called World Of Warcraft was making decent money :)
 
Bluffmaster said:
The birth of consoles was a blessing in disguise which not only opened new avenues for gaming enthusiasts but also started keeping the GPU companies in check. The result being, that today a 2 year old GPU can still flawlessly play latest games where some years ago a 40k card refused to give playble framerates just a year after its release.
Click to expand...
And that is where you are wrong. Consoles have ALWAYS co-existed with the PC's, and the PC has ALWAYS been a superior platform. The lack of many console exclusive games doesn't change that fact.

And if you are telling me a 4.5 year old 8800 GTX (which never costed 40k btw) can not play today's games albeit in lower detailing, then OH GOD you're wrong.
 
Piracy will be a major concern on consoles IF developers stop developing games for PC. Piracy exists on consoles too but, it is negligible compared to PC as most pirates are focussed on PC games. If PC gaming dies then pirates will buy consoles and start pirating on consoles.
 
^

A two year old gpu can play new games but using what settings? Do you get most of the eye candies on? And you are talking of 2 years, a console will play all the games at full settings until next gen console released, that is 7-8 years minimum. Which is more vfm now?

Also, you are saying people cant afford console but can afford pc? Rofl, a decent gaming pc will cost 25-30k minimum. Whereas a console costs within 20k. So which one is more affordable? The only thing you can say is that PC games are pirated mostly, so no cost of getting new games, just download from internet. Consoles are costly in this respect but nowadays, console games can also be downloaded online.

And about pc games, only those games are making good sales which are played mostly multiplayer. It is definitely not the case for single player games.
 
jc36lect3r said:
That's called halting progress. Consoles may have made gaming more accessible, but they have also made publishers too lazy to strive for innovation. That is why a 2 year old GPU can play today's games flawlessly. I consider that as a bane, not a boon.

PC Gaming is not in such deep shite as is being made out here. There are some genres like strategy games which are not viable on consoles. And last time I checked, a PC exclusive called World Of Warcraft was making decent money :)
Click to expand...

I knew someone would say that. My answer like always is the same, what would you rather have? A game with advanced graphics whichmost of us cannot afford to play or a game with decent graphics which is fun and accesible by everyone. This is another reason for the succuess of Call Of Duty.

Even if the developers were to follow this path, it would only result in more and more PC gamers to drift away towards console gaming.At the end of the day a deeply engaging gameplay is any day better than photo realistic graphics. Moreover, why do you only consoder graphical improvements as the only medium of advancement of technology? I was greatly impressed by the motion-capture work done in L.A Noire which resulted in creating an engaging atmosphere despite of the average graphics. Hell, they even cast "real stars" to make the game feel more engaging. The day is not far when major hollywood celebrities would be cast in leading roles in a game title. If that is not advancement in technology than what is?
 
@ aman27deep

Pcs has got better specs than consoles, superior hardware, superior platform, but only when you update pc components regularly. You play a new game with 4 year old card, you play same game with 7 year old console, better experience will be the console for sure because you cannot experience the superior gfx in pc for not updating your gfx card.

:)

Also, FPS experience is superior in PC than consoles, for games like Fifa, NFS, I feel the consoles better.
 
Bluffmaster said:
I knew someone would say that. My answer like always is the same, what would you rather have? A game with advanced graphics whichmost of us cannot afford to play or a game with decent graphics which is fun and accesible by everyone. This is another reason for the succuess of Call Of Duty.

Even if the developers were to follow this path, it would only result in more and more PC gamers to drift away towards console gaming.At the end of the day a deeply engaging gameplay is any day better than photo realistic graphics. Moreover, why do you only consoder graphical improvements as the only medium of advancement of technology? I was greatly impressed by the motion-capture work done in L.A Noire which resulted in creating an engaging atmosphere despite of the average graphics. Hell, they even cast "real stars" to make the game feel more engaging. The day is not far when major hollywood celebrities would be cast in leading roles in a game title. If that is not advancement in technology than what is?
Click to expand...
Yes, the technology in Noir is truly amazing, no denying that. So is Kinect. But they are too few and far between. Call me vain, but I have a weakness for photorealistic graphics :) I also expect that if today I spend 40K to build a gaming rig I can buy games that actually use that technology :)
 
Aman27deep said:
And that is where you are wrong. Consoles have ALWAYS co-existed with the PC's, and the PC has ALWAYS been a superior platform. The lack of many console exclusive games doesn't change that fact.

And if you are telling me a 4.5 year old 8800 GTX (which never costed 40k btw) can not play today's games albeit in lower detailing, then OH GOD you're wrong.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Yes, consoles have always co-existed with the PC and yes the PC is technically the superior platform for gaming BUT the fact remains that console is the preffered choice for gaming by majority of gamers because of the easy accessibility.

About the GPU, I was speaking more in general terms. The point was, if you are investing 25k-35k on a GPU, what good is it if after an year you were not able to enjoy the latest games on Max settings. This would have been the case if the Consoles wouldn't have gone mainstream.
 
MrRIG said:
In India most of the entry level gamers use PC just because they cannot afford Gaming Consoles such as PS3 or XBox 360, secondly they can buy a decent used or new graphic card according to their budget. Some families are against Gaming consoles.
Click to expand...
I agree to the part where Indian families are against Consoles. For a gamer who is not independant as yet it is easier to convince his folks to buy him a high-end rig than buying a console meant only for gaming. I blame ignorance on parents part for this. What do you expect your son will do with a high-end rig? Create Powerpoint presentations? :P But I expect this trend to change soon with consoles turning into a viable media center option.
 
Bluffmaster said:
Why don't you guys just accept that the consoles are a superior platform for gaming as far as accessibilty is concerned. If you are reading this post on this forum, you may consider yourself a member of an elite class of gamers i.e you are most likely tech-savy and know your way around things. Now, whats noteworthy is that you constitute a very small percentage of gamers overall. Gaming consoles are now a cultural phenomenon, every house has one. The obvious reason for its success is the ease of use. People aged 5 and above can just pop a DVD and enjoy a gaming session. These people do not care about superior graphics, high textures or higher framerates, they just enjoy playing a game and these people are in the majority among gamers. It is this kind of accesibilty that the PC can never offer. PC gaming is a niche market now, therefore it doesn't make any business sense to develop solely for PC. Rampant Piracy is another major factor for the dent in PC sales.

But why is all this a cause of worry? Almost all major titles are realeased for the PC and are in most cases superior to their console ports. In my opinion the success of consoles has only benifitted the PC gaming community. Not long ago both Nvidia and ATI were milking huge profits thanks to the gullible PC gamers who had to shell out insane amounts of money every now and then just to play the latest Gaming sensation. The birth of consoles was a blessing in disguise which not only opened new avenues for gaming enthusiasts but also started keeping the GPU companies in check. The result being, that today a 2 year old GPU can still flawlessly play latest games where some years ago a 40k card refused to give playble framerates just a year after its release.
Click to expand...
No one's saying that PC games should be exclusive. What people want are games that are optimized for the respective platform. A multi-platform game does not necessarily mean programing for the platform with the least hardware potential and then making shitty ports to the other platforms. For instance how would you feel about games that use Wii or PS/2 as lead platform and then ported to XBOX 360 and PS3 in the same state with the only addition being a pile of porting related bugs. Multi-platform games shouldn't be any different from exclusives in quality or optimization for respective platform.

And yeah, halting progress of hardware and software is in no way beneficial to any one. Neither to PC gamers nor to console gamers. It will only hurt both in the long run. And no, there was never an instance where people have had to buy 40k cards every year. If you want to run games at the same resolutions as a console would (600~72op), even a PC GPU can handle that. Ultimately what is the use of buying multiple platforms if you are going to get games that are not going to be uniquely optimized for the respective platform. Where is the user choice in that? Why would you even have a PC for gaming. Just buy the cheapest console in the market if that what developers are using as their baseline.

I know there would be people who are ready to scream that game play is important and graphics doesn't matter. But for me, graphics are just as important as any other aspect of the game. I would like to ask you, would you be fine going back to the ear of textual RPG/Adventures that were such a craze back in the old times. would you be fine with 256 color arcade ports on your $200+ consoles because that is what you would still have if not for progress in hardware and software.

While Multi-Platform games make a strong business sense, there is no denying that Multi-Platform compatibility is being abused like anything. Instead of offering choice to the user or bringing innovation, Multi platform compatibility has become a way for lazy developers to put all the blame on the console hardware and get away with poorly built/optimized games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom