Download Only Games? Yay or nay?

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Airk

Actually, yes, or it would be a lot more successful than it is.

Valve/Steam is worth around two billion dollars. That's a major player in the PC games business but they're still just one player and it doesn't count the values of PC gaming to Electronic Arts or Bethesda or what the digital downloads section of Amazon is worth these days, etc.

"A lot more successful" is a pretty relative term. I'd say PC gaming is pretty successful right now.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by Airk

Actually, yes, or it would be a lot more successful than it is. PC Gaming has proven, time and time again throughout the decades, to have a higher failure rate than the average person who just wants to play some games is willing to put up with.

Dedicated gamers have no problems, because they are willing to put in the time to figure out what is "wrong" with their computer. They keep their display adapter drivers up to date.

I recently bought a game on Steam that simply wouldn't start. Some forum searching indicated that it did not play nicenice with ZoneAlarm, even though every other game I have, Steam or otherwise, does. So everytime I want to play, I have to open Process Explorer, kill the offending process, and then quickly start the game before Zonealarm notices the process is dead and starts it back up. All it takes is one of these sorts of events to make the average gamer throw up their hands and say "screw this".

The thing is, when I want to play a game, I want to play a game. I don't want to tweak my computer 10 times. I enjoy playing games. I DON'T enjoy tweaking the damn computer settings. If a game company makes me jump through too many hoops to install or play a game, then I am far, far less likely to buy another game from that company. This goes for both downloaded and physical media games.

If playing a game is going to involve a lot of work on my part, then I'm quite likely to turn to some other form of entertainment. I look forward to new games, I drool over them...but if a given company has provided me with a bad experience in downloading or installing or starting up a game, well, there's a whole big bunch of classic games that I haven't played yet. Ones that won't give me problems. I'm sure that I could learn to tweak more effectively, but frankly I've got other things to do which are more interesting. Cleaning the cat boxes gives me more satisfaction than tweaking my computer.

I have choices when I want to play a game. I am not forced to go along with marketing techniques such as download only games, unless I want to play a specific game. Game companies are competing for my entertainment dollars, new video games are NOT a necessity for me. They are a very strong want, but wants are not needs. If what game companies offer is not appealing to me, I can and I will go on to other methods of entertainment.

[Jophiel]

There seems to be a select group doomed to get 95% of the issues when it comes to dealing with PC games. Most people I know, myself included, almost never have any issues. Heck, I've had more problems with bad Playstation discs than with installing/running PC games.

I don't doubt that the tales of woe are largely accurate. It's not as though people like Lynn Bodoni are plants by the Console Gaming conspiracy. I just wonder what bizarre dealings her great-great-grandfather had with the gypsy great-great-grandmother of EA's CEO that she cursed the Bodoni bloodline.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Grandpa Bodoni was a low level mafioso. I don't think that he ever killed anyone, though I'm not sure. He DID smack one guy on the head with a hammer, but that was personal, not business. Other than that, I don't recall any notorious blood feuds in the family.

I have over four feet of Playstation/PS2 games on my shelf right now. I apparently wore out one of my FFVIII discs (not surprising when you consider that I abused Angelo Search so much), and had to buy another copy. And I bought a used copy of FFX-II that I had to get resurfaced. Other than that, I've never had a problem with getting a console game to play.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

People, in general, aren't very computer savvy. And these people ar eintimidated by an open platform like the PC.

I'm pretty convinced that PC gaming would actually be able to reach the masses if Microsoft made the "Windows Experience" number more prominent and PC developers actually used it on packaging, download sites, and in marketing.

However, you are wrong if you think consoles ar emore popular than PC's when it comes to gaming.

Every market research study done shows, concretely, that gaming on the PC is done by a LOT more people than those gaming on consoles.

This is just crazy talk mister. Why...

It's mostly social gaming and browser based gaming, but there you go. Even if you take those people away, MMO + Digital + retail is LARGER than any single console in terms of software market share. Steam just posted it's 8th consecutive 100% increase in yearly sales.

Oh, so you did qualify that statement. And as you word it, it's correct. But if you're going to use all those sources to compare the two platforms, you have to do it fairly. And console retail + subscription fees + digital trumps the PC handily.

And I'd bet good money that the Xbox 360 (with it's 12-16 million Gold subscribers) does it all by itself.

[Jophiel]

I'm not implying that I've had a LOT of trouble with PS discs. But I can think of at least three games I had issues with and only two games with PC problems (one of which is livable-with).

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Oh, so you did qualify that statement. And as you word it, it's correct. But if you're going to use all those sources to compare the two platforms, you have to do it fairly. And console retail + subscription fees + digital trumps the PC handily.

And I'd bet good money that the Xbox 360 (with it's 12-16 million Gold subscribers) does it all by itself.

Uhm, you do know there's this little game called WOW out there, that charges it's 12 million subscribers $15 a MONTH, right? That one, singular PC exclusive DWARFS what any console exclusive game makes, and certainly trumps what Microsoft makes from xbox Gold subscriptions. Specially since that's just part of digging them selves out of the hole that is subsidizing, marketing and supporting console hardware for several years.

And you're wrong about the rest too.

Retail + digital + MMO PC share of the software market is nearly 1/2 of the ENTIRE console market. That is retail, digital, across PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, AND handhelds.

I'm not saying "core" PC gaming is larger than console gaming. But it's better than any single console.

So I hardly see how it could not possibly be called successful.

Or to put it another way, if PC gaming isn't successful, the Ps3 is DEAD and the xbox is got a foot in the grave.

[Kinthalis]

I hate the short edit window!

Bottom line, if there wasn't a significant amount of money to be made on the PC, no one would be making PC games.

Instead we have everybody and their mothers rushing to put up digital store fronts for PC, developing MMO's and getting in the Free to Play market. Just about every developer who isn't tied to the console manufacturers in some way develops their games for both PC and consoles, many of them adding PC specific features not to be seen on consoles. Heck, a PC exclusive just released that had 1.7 million more pre-orders than the big (early) console release of the month.

Cliffy B of Unreal Engine fame and infamous PC hater just got up in front of a bunch of devs telling them to focus on PC game development, and NOT consoles. That same company announcing their "next gen" engine and emphasizing it as being PC and next gen console cross-platform, and pointing out it's running on modern PC hardware, right now.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

Other than that, I've never had a problem with getting a console game to play.

I'm assuming you didn't have one of the earliest PS(1) consoles. I went through 2 of them before I got one that didn't scratch every disc placed inside of it.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Uhm, you do know there's this little game called WOW out there, that charges it's 12 million subscribers $15 a MONTH, right? That one, singular PC exclusive DWARFS what any console exclusive game makes, and certainly trumps what Microsoft makes from xbox Gold subscriptions. Specially since that's just part of digging them selves out of the hole that is subsidizing, marketing and supporting console hardware for several years.

WoW has 10 million subscribers, not 12. Also, the average WoW subscription price is $14 a month. That's $1.68 billion a year.

Xbox Live Gold is $59.99 a year. Microsoft doesn't give hard numbers for XBL Gold, but they usually peg it at 50% of the total number of users. There are currently 40 million XBL users, so 20 million Gold subscribers. That's $1.2 billion a year.

WoW wins, but it's not a blowout.

Retail + digital + MMO PC share of the software market is nearly 1/2 of the ENTIRE console market. That is retail, digital, across PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, AND handhelds.

You know that the "ENTIRE console market" excludes digital console games right? It's never been counted, but the informal numbers released paint a very healthy picture for the consoles.

Minecraft Xbox 360 Edition just sold a million copies. Trials Evolution just sold 500,000. The Walking Dead sold a million across PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. There are not insignificant numbers and they're always ignored in this discussion.

[Jophiel]

Why, it's almost as though BOTH platforms are healthy, profitable and viable!

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

Why, it's almost as though BOTH platforms are healthy, profitable and viable!

Yeah, they are. Which is why statements like this confuse me so:

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Or to put it another way, if PC gaming isn't successful, the Ps3 is DEAD and the xbox is got a foot in the grave.

[Jophiel]

He was saying that, to call PC gaming a loss, you'd have to call the consoles a loss as well since PC gaming is doing at least as well as any (singular) console. How could you call PC gaming a failure and then say the Xbox360 is a success (or vice versa)?

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Yeah, they are. Which is why statements like this confuse me so:

Well no wonder you are confused.

My statement was making the same point Jophiel was making.

I said IF PC is not doing good... Which is what the poster I was originally replying to was saying saying.

I KNOW PC is doing well. Anyone withy half a brain and any sort of knowledge of the marketplace knows it's doing well. AND so are consoles.

But a lot of console gamers swear PC is dead and consoles rule all.

In fact you were saying exactly that not too long ago.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by srzss05

I'm assuming you didn't have one of the earliest PS(1) consoles. I went through 2 of them before I got one that didn't scratch every disc placed inside of it.

No, I didn't get a PS1 right when they first came out. I never get the first release of ANY new console or device...because the first releases generally still have a few bugs in them.

[BigT]

I've been known to buy games online and then pirate them if there are DRM hassles. In my mind, I paid for the game, so I don't see it as wrong.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by BigT

I've been known to buy games online and then pirate them if there are DRM hassles. In my mind, I paid for the game, so I don't see it as wrong.

If you really mean pirate and not copy, then what you are doing is wrong. Pirate means copy and sell to others, or copy without paying for it (such as buying it, copying it, then returning the original).

[SenorBeef]

I assume he means download them from illegal sharing sites and then apply a crack to get them to work, just as you would if you were pirating the game. The twist is that he owns the game so he's not really pirating it, but rather getting around hassles with the legit installation. I've done that too.

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

There seems to be a select group doomed to get 95% of the issues when it comes to dealing with PC games. Most people I know, myself included, almost never have any issues. Heck, I've had more problems with bad Playstation discs than with installing/running PC games.

This is probably because you are a highly technical computer user who does things (you know, like keeping your drivers up to date) that head off these sorts of problems before they happen. Or perhaps you're just lucky, because there's no predicting "Oh, I'm sorry, our game doesn't play nice with your very popular free antivirus software, perhaps you should try a different one, like that nice product from Symantec."

And again, I am saying that PC gaming would be MORE successful - emphasis COMPARITIVE - if people didn't have all these problems with their systems, but lets face it; There's an entire INDUSTRY devoted to keeping peoples' PCs working, whereas, even with the much exagerated failure rate of the Xbox 360, the WORST the end user ever had to deal with was Microsoft saying "We're very sorry, we'll replace it for you." rather than getting some tech in India saying "Okay, click start, then run, type 'dxdiag' and tell me what version it says you have. It's in the upper left hand corner of the box that pops up. Okay, now download this file, run it, reboot..." The observant members of the audience will note that nowhere did _I_ say that PC gaming is "Dead" "a failure" "fading" or whatever. I'm saying that if PC gaming WERE TRULY as easy for people as console gaming, then CONSOLE gaming would probably be dead, and PC gaming would be... wait for it... MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL than it is now. However, it's not and they aren't. Way to misconstrue the case, Kinthalis.

It baffles me that people continue to argue that PCs are easy for the average person. They're really still not. They're getting closer (more because a larger percentage of "the average person" has grown up with them than anything else) but consoles require about the same degree of technical know-how as a CD player. It's not even in the same league.

Also, WRT to "everyone rushing to build MMOs because the PC market is so damn lucrative" uhm... I hate to say, but most MMOs are a quick way to flush money down the toilet. The failure rate there is gruesome. People keep looking at WoW and saying "If we could only get 10% of that, we'd be golden!" but they don't realize that they are not going to.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I have over four feet of Playstation/PS2 games on my shelf right now. I apparently wore out one of my FFVIII discs (not surprising when you consider that I abused Angelo Search so much), and had to buy another copy. And I bought a used copy of FFX-II that I had to get resurfaced. Other than that, I've never had a problem with getting a console game to play.

You're comparing modern PC gaming with console gaming from the 90's and early 2000's? The PS3 and the Xbox 360 is what you want to compare it with. My PC is a thousand times more stable than my Xbox 360, and my PS3. If a game is out on all formats, I will always choose the PC, because I know it will work.

Really it's a matter of education (fighting ignorance?) regarding how PC's work and how to maintain them. But, if you can't really be bothered with that, that's fine too. That's why consoles are there. They're great, and easy to use for the average gamer.

Have fun with your old games. But if you want a modern gaming experience, you'll want to upgrade I think.

As an aside, what's the internet like in the USA? From what I gather from this thread in some places it can be quite dodgy. Here in the UK I get 30mbps and unlimited downloads (it's the cheapest plan my ISP provides), which is why downloading 20GB games isn't really a problem. In fact, it's quicker than walking into town and back to physically buy the game!

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Airk

This is probably because you are a highly technical computer user who does things (you know, like keeping your drivers up to date) that head off these sorts of problems before they happen. Or perhaps you're just lucky, because there's no predicting "Oh, I'm sorry, our game doesn't play nice with your very popular free antivirus software, perhaps you should try a different one, like that nice product from Symantec."

And again, I am saying that PC gaming would be MORE successful - emphasis COMPARITIVE - if people didn't have all these problems with their systems, but lets face it; There's an entire INDUSTRY devoted to keeping peoples' PCs working, whereas, even with the much exagerated failure rate of the Xbox 360, the WORST the end user ever had to deal with was Microsoft saying "We're very sorry, we'll replace it for you." rather than getting some tech in India saying "Okay, click start, then run, type 'dxdiag' and tell me what version it says you have. It's in the upper left hand corner of the box that pops up. Okay, now download this file, run it, reboot..." The observant members of the audience will note that nowhere did _I_ say that PC gaming is "Dead" "a failure" "fading" or whatever. I'm saying that if PC gaming WERE TRULY as easy for people as console gaming, then CONSOLE gaming would probably be dead, and PC gaming would be... wait for it... MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL than it is now. However, it's not and they aren't. Way to misconstrue the case, Kinthalis.

It baffles me that people continue to argue that PCs are easy for the average person. They're really still not. They're getting closer (more because a larger percentage of "the average person" has grown up with them than anything else) but consoles require about the same degree of technical know-how as a CD player. It's not even in the same league.

Also, WRT to "everyone rushing to build MMOs because the PC market is so damn lucrative" uhm... I hate to say, but most MMOs are a quick way to flush money down the toilet. The failure rate there is gruesome. People keep looking at WoW and saying "If we could only get 10% of that, we'd be golden!" but they don't realize that they are not going to.

It's not just MMO's they are rushing to build though.

The free to play online experience is doing well, many indies have made more money the first week on PC than in months on console platforms, and even big tripple A titles do very well on PC, specially considering that the PC market is mostly digital now, and digital sales represent over twice the profit for these companies vs a retail console sale (take a look at Skyrim PC for example).

Or maybe take a gander at Diablo 3's latest sales figures. 6.3 million in the first week, NOT counting several Asian territories (where the game is huge!).

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

It's not just MMO's they are rushing to build though.

No, I just thought I'd point out how "well" the MMO market is doing. The things are a money trap at this point. The road to bankruptcy is paved with failed MMOs.

The free to play online experience is doing well, many indies have made more money the first week on PC than in months on console platforms

Yeah, because the Xbox Live Indie Games section is a godawful dumping ground with very little in the way of methods to sort the wheat from the chaff. And many of these games are exactly the sort of nostalgia trip/in joke that appeals to the people who probably had nerdy childhoods and are now entirely at home on the PC. Yes, I am generalizing, and Cthulu Saves the World says my generalization is right. :P

and even big tripple A titles do very well on PC, specially considering that the PC market is mostly digital now, and digital sales represent over twice the profit for these companies vs a retail console sale (take a look at Skyrim PC for example).

Do we have to go over this AGAIN? No matter how many times you say "is doing well" or "is comparable to" or whatever, you are missing the point.

Or maybe take a gander at Diablo 3's latest sales figures. 6.3 million in the first week, NOT counting several Asian territories (where the game is huge!).

Yes please, we shall use a once-in-a-decade game from a sure-hit studio with infinite money that it only even released on one platform anyway, so people couldn't choose a different one if they wanted to as the standard for the state of the PC gaming industry. :P If every game on the PC sold like Diablo 3, we wouldn't be having this chat, but one hilarious anomaly every five years or so from Blizzard does not a towering industry make.

I'm more curious about the numbers for, say, Call of Modern Duty Warfare 6. Which, according to VGChartz (Which, I note, I don't entirely trust, but I don't know another source for this kind of thing), sold the following breakout: (Okay, the game in question is ACTUALLY Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3)
Xbox 360: 14.01 million global units
PS3: 11.81 million global units
PC: 1.36 million global units
Wii (What? This game came out on the Wii?): 0.46 million global units

Now I realize that this is probably as much an outlier as Diablo, but a quick glance at other games in the series shows a similar breakout. Ditto Battlefield 3. Heck, ditto Skyrim, which according to the same source moved 5.91m/3.75m/2.19m on 360/PS3/PC. Does this include digital sales? Hell if I know, but even if it doesn't, and TWICE as many people bought the game digitally as didn't, then it's still not equalling the number of people who picked it up on the console.

Now, we have the following possible reasons why people could be buying this stuff on the console:

#1) Don't have a PC that will run it/At all
#2) Prefer console ease of use
#3) Are too stupid to understand that the game looks better on the PC

Which reasons do you think are in play here?

Again, I'm not saying that this is the death knell for the PC game industry or anything ridiculous like that - clearly, there's a big market for casual Free-to-play offerings, at the very least :P - but I find it baffling that you are even trying to argue that PC gaming wouldn't do better if it were easier for the everyman.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Or maybe take a gander at Diablo 3's latest sales figures. 6.3 million in the first week, NOT counting several Asian territories (where the game is huge!).

Read the press release again. They SOLD 5.1 million copies in the first week, including to players in Asian territories.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/diablo...130000595.html

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by Fake Tales of San Francisco

You're comparing modern PC gaming with console gaming from the 90's and early 2000's? The PS3 and the Xbox 360 is what you want to compare it with. My PC is a thousand times more stable than my Xbox 360, and my PS3. If a game is out on all formats, I will always choose the PC, because I know it will work.

Really it's a matter of education (fighting ignorance?) regarding how PC's work and how to maintain them. But, if you can't really be bothered with that, that's fine too. That's why consoles are there. They're great, and easy to use for the average gamer.

Have fun with your old games. But if you want a modern gaming experience, you'll want to upgrade I think.

As an aside, what's the internet like in the USA? From what I gather from this thread in some places it can be quite dodgy. Here in the UK I get 30mbps and unlimited downloads (it's the cheapest plan my ISP provides), which is why downloading 20GB games isn't really a problem. In fact, it's quicker than walking into town and back to physically buy the game!

I have an XBox 360, and I almost never play it. I'm not interested in most of the games that are available for it. I vastly prefer turn based games to real time games, among other things. I don't have a PS3. If a console doesn't offer games that I want to play, I don't buy the console. The only reason I have the XBox was because I desperately wanted Rock Band: The Beatles. I've got a couple of other games for that XBox, but it's just not something I turn on very often.

And a lot of the PC games that I want are older games, as well. I'd prefer to have newer games, but I don't particularly want things like sports sims or FPSs. It's like...I used to go to video arcades a lot. But the games changed, and I don't see games that I'd be interested in any more.

As for maintaining my PC, I update my virus protection every week, and check for updates on my other stuff every 10 days. I have lists of chores, and when I'm supposed to do them. Things like cleaning out my purse, deep cleaning the bathrooms, cleaning out my car...just trivial little stuff that needs to be done on a regular basis. If I don't have it on a list, I'd probably never get around to it. So the computer "housekeeping" goes on a list, too. It's like deep cleaning the bathroom, I don't particularly enjoy doing it but I know it's gotta be done or I'll have a big problem on my hands sooner or later.

Playing games should be fun. There should be a bare minimum of work that the player should be expected to do before installing and playing the game. I've pretty much decided not to buy any more Civilization games because 1) if I buy the first one to come out, there's going to be another, better version out that will have more content at a lower price and 2) I really don't want to spend several hours trying to tweak my computer in order to get it to work.

In another analogy, in a lot of cases, I'll buy ebooks, but not always. I enjoy browsing shelves of books, because even the better ebook listings are not as good as being able to pick up a book and examining it. Sometimes it's impossible to tell just what sort of book is being sold, as I'm only given the title and the author. The same goes for games. In many cases, I want to examine the game, as in many cases the packaging has more info on it than the online game listing has.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Airk

No, I just thought I'd point out how "well" the MMO market is doing. The things are a money trap at this point. The road to bankruptcy is paved with failed MMOs.

You seriously think developers haven't gone bankrupt making console games?

I'm really not going to waste my time on you if you lack that very basic understanding of the industry. Can you give me examples of studios going under due to a failed MMO? I'd love to see evidence of this "money trap".

Yeah, because the Xbox Live Indie Games section is a godawful dumping ground with very little in the way of methods to sort the wheat from the chaff. And many of these games are exactly the sort of nostalgia trip/in joke that appeals to the people who probably had nerdy childhoods and are now entirely at home on the PC. Yes, I am generalizing, and Cthulu Saves the World says my generalization is right. :P

So excuses, followed by insults at PC gamers. Stay classy Airk.

Do we have to go over this AGAIN? No matter how many times you say "is doing well" or "is comparable to" or whatever, you are missing the point.

What exactly IS your point other than it's NOT doing well, and it's NOT comparable? Which only show your ignorance of the market.

Yes please, we shall use a once-in-a-decade game from a sure-hit studio with infinite money that it only even released on one platform anyway, so people couldn't choose a different one if they wanted to as the standard for the state of the PC gaming industry. :P

Diablo 3 was one of several examples I used in that paragraph.

I'm more curious about the numbers for, say, Call of Modern Duty Warfare 6. Which, according to VGChartz

I'll stop you right there, before your ignorance of the market continues to embarrass you. VGAChartz is a laughing stock in these arguments. They DO NOT track sales. They poll a few random people at local gamestops and extrapolate from those numbers. You can imagine that these numbers might have some serious Bias, no?

I'll give you some examples if you don't believe me.

When Diablo3 announced the 6.3 million sales, VGAChartz had it selling 800,000 copies.

When The Wticher 2 announced nearly 2 million sales, VGA Chartz said the PC version had sold 80,000.

Valve and Dice have stated that games like Portla 2 and Battlefield BAD Company 2 sold MORE on PC than console. VGA Chartz says console outsold PC something like 10 to 1.

When come back, bring real numbers. Preferably by the publisher/developer.

Again, I'm not saying that this is the death knell for the PC game industry or anything ridiculous like that - clearly, there's a big market for casual Free-to-play offerings, at the very least :P - but I find it baffling that you are even trying to argue that PC gaming wouldn't do better if it were easier for the everyman.

I'm sorry... when did I say this? Care to quote me? ';cause I really don't recall saying making PC gaming easier would be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Read the press release again. They SOLD 5.1 million copies in the first week, including to players in Asian territories.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/diablo...130000595.html

I think YOU need to read your own link.

It says exactly what I said.

6.3 million and NOT including SOME Asian territories. Try again.

[BlinkingDuck]

I am a Steamoholic.

I'm here admitting it and need help

In all seriousness, it is the way of the future. Piracy has been rampant and damaging for too long. Things like Steam hopefully will put the profit back into these games - particularly small/Indie organizations. Hopefully we will see a re-emergence of PC games instead of the steady decline over the past decade+.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

I am a Steamoholic.

I'm here admitting it and need help

In all seriousness, it is the way of the future. Piracy has been rampant and damaging for too long. Things like Steam hopefully will put the profit back into these games - particularly small/Indie organizations. Hopefully we will see a re-emergence of PC games instead of the steady decline over the past decade+.

I think this meme is really mostly a problem of perspective.

The PC game market has been GROWING since well, always. However, consoles blew up with the past couple of generations, growing exponentially, specially in the States, where most of us people interacting in forums like these are located.

It's why every who isn't a PC gamer is convinced that it's dying.

Nevermind that the platform has the most number of highly rated games of any other platform. Nevermind that in terms of profitability on the software side it is a match for any single console platform, and it's not too far behind even taking them together.

Nevermind that just about every developer not connected with the console manufacturers puts games out on PC.

I mean everything tells you that PC is not dying, it's doing well, in fact it's continually growing.

No one would be putting out games on it if it wasn't a profitable market.

And yet this silliness persists.

Not only does it persists, but there are some people who get really angry when these facts are pointed out to them, because god damn it, PC is dying and that's that.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

I think YOU need to read your own link.

It says exactly what I said.

6.3 million and NOT including SOME Asian territories. Try again.

Come on Kinthalis, you're better than this.

In Blizzard's own press release, it says they GAVE AWAY 1.2 million copies of Diablo III to WoW Annual Pass subscribers. So 6.3 million minus 1.2 million comped copies is 5.1 million copies sold.

But you're partially right, Blizzard separated out the Korean game rooms. But those copies of the game still had to be purchased by the game room owners, so they're counted in the 5.1 million figure. Because the press release says nothing about those copies being excluded from the total (which they would definitely say, because it would make their accomplishment all the more impressive).

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

I think this meme is really mostly a problem of perspective.

The PC game market has been GROWING since well, always. However, consoles blew up with the past couple of generations, growing exponentially, specially in the States, where most of us people interacting in forums like these are located.

It's why every who isn't a PC gamer is convinced that it's dying.

Nevermind that the platform has the most number of highly rated games of any other platform. Nevermind that in terms of profitability on the software side it is a match for any single console platform, and it's not too far behind even taking them together.

Nevermind that just about every developer not connected with the console manufacturers puts games out on PC.

I mean everything tells you that PC is not dying, it's doing well, in fact it's continually growing.

No one would be putting out games on it if it wasn't a profitable market.

And yet this silliness persists.

Not only does it persists, but there are some people who get really angry when these facts are pointed out to them, because god damn it, PC is dying and that's that.

Really?

Then why, before Steam...when I went into Software stores there used to be rows upon rows of games and this has declined now to the point where there is one shelf with something like 40 PC games on it...half educational?

THAT'S what I based my perception on...and if that isn't DYING...I don't know what is.

Steam was a breath of fresh air...all sorts of games to chose from and some of them even looked damn good!

Maybe those games existed...but I live in a major metropolitian area and I will tell you it sure looked like PC games were not only dying...but essentially dead.

I hopped on Steam pretty early and it sure looks like there are many more small developer/Indie games then there used to be. It now LOOKS like PC games are starting to rise...but if PC games were doing well before, I sure would hate to see what dying looked like.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

Really?

Then why, before Steam...when I went into Software stores there used to be rows upon rows of games and this has declined now to the point where there is one shelf with something like 40 games on it...half educational?

In "software" stores or game stores? Gamestop devotes most of their space to used console games which isn't an option for most PC titles. Should I assume new console games are dying because 75% of the space is devoted to used titles?

I haven't been game shopping at a Best Buy recently but a couple summers ago they had 1.5 double-sides aisles with PC games. I'd imagine digital distribution and online retail box purchasing has taken a good bite out of it though. The games still sell, just through other channels.

[Jophiel]

Also, back in the glory days of software stores like Egghead and Babbages and the like, you had a section for PC games. And a section for Commodore games. A separate section for Amiga games. A section for Mac games and a section for Apple II games. A section for Tandy games, etc. The "PC" section isn't really smaller, it's just surrounded by XBox360, PS3, Wii, DS/DSi, whatever else games that get homogeneously called "consoles" that seemingly outnumber the PC games by a vast margin.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Come on Kinthalis, you're better than this.

In Blizzard's own press release, it says they GAVE AWAY 1.2 million copies of Diablo III to WoW Annual Pass subscribers. So 6.3 million minus 1.2 million comped copies is 5.1 million copies sold.

But you're partially right, Blizzard separated out the Korean game rooms. But those copies of the game still had to be purchased by the game room owners, so they're counted in the 5.1 million figure. Because the press release says nothing about those copies being excluded from the total (which they would definitely say, because it would make their accomplishment all the more impressive).

Blizzard statement says:

1. We sold 3.5 million copies day 1.

2. We also, on top of that saw 1.2 million WOW user who signed up for a new contract load up Diablo 3 (which came free with that contract).

3. For the week, SALES, number 6.3 million. Not counting South Korea (and actually a few other territories).


No where there does it say that the 6.3 actually count the freebies from WOW accounts. In fact, they seperate them when giving out the original numbers.

Also, the licensing for the games does not work they way you think it does in South Korea, which is why they SPECIFICALLY say those numbers do not include the money they make from there.

You really are dead set on putting down anything on the PC platform aren't? Even making shit up is right up your alley. ANYTHING to bring it down a peg.

The hell why?

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

Really?

Then why, before Steam...when I went into Software stores there used to be rows upon rows of games and this has declined now to the point where there is one shelf with something like 40 PC games on it...half educational?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the software market.

I had no idea what we were actually tlaking abouit is your local Gamestop.

My bad.

Not enough of these: in the entire freeking world.

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

You seriously think developers haven't gone bankrupt making console games?

I'm really not going to waste my time on you if you lack that very basic understanding of the industry. Can you give me examples of studios going under due to a failed MMO? I'd love to see evidence of this "money trap".

Age of Conan? Star Wars Galaxies? Shadowbane? Vanguard? Rift? Warhammer Online? Tabula Rasa? It'd be easier to list the MMOs that HAVEN'T failed. Heck, LotRO only saved itself by going free to play. Aion is trying to do the same.

So excuses, followed by insults at PC gamers. Stay classy Airk.

"Different demographics" is an excuse? Next thing you know, not selling a game on a platform will be an 'excuse'. And yay, I knew I couldn't get away with insulting myself in this thread without getting called on it. Woo.

What exactly IS your point other than it's NOT doing well, and it's NOT comparable? Which only show your ignorance of the market.

But I'm NOT saying those things, which is exactly what you're missing. Every example I have been giving has been in an attempt to show just how MUCH room there potentially is for PC gaming to grow if it were actually as easy as consoles. Do you DENY that PC gaming would do BETTER if PCs were exactly as easy to game on as consoles? Simple question, sir.

I'll stop you right there, before your ignorance of the market continues to embarrass you. VGAChartz is a laughing stock in these arguments. They DO NOT track sales. They poll a few random people at local gamestops and extrapolate from those numbers. You can imagine that these numbers might have some serious Bias, no?

Certainly. Do you have a more reliable source other than one press release for a PC only title?

I'm sorry... when did I say this? Care to quote me? ';cause I really don't recall saying making PC gaming easier would be a bad thing.

It's what you've been unwitting arguing this entire thread, because my ONLY POINT is that PC gaming gives enough people enough trouble that they pick consoles instead. Go back and read my VERY FIRST STATEMENT on this issue. Heck, here, I'll save you the trouble:

"it would be a lot more successful than it is."

Do we both understand what that means? Because it sure sounds like you're attacking the "PC gaming is dead/inferior/meaningless/somethingnegative" strawman here when, in reality, I don't CARE, and all I am doing is making a simple, factual statement that the difficulties involved in PC gaming drive some people away. I note with amusement that you've chosen not to answer my "which reasons do you think people might not pick PC games" question.

I AM a PC gamer. I AM someone who had a nerdy childhood and is now entirely at home on the PC. I AM a major consumer of indie games. But I am ALSO a console gamer. I do not believe PC gaming is dying, though I do believe that "core games" on all platforms are due for a 'correction' sometime in the next few years, because everyone wants to be CoD or Diablo, budgets are ballooning, and it's getting harder and harder for AAA titles that AREN'T CoD or Dialbo to turn a profit.

So if you'd take a minute off from attacking anyone who sounds vaguely like they think PC gaming is "not doing as well as it humanly possibly could" then maybe you'd realize that you are, in fact, making a bit of a fool of yourself when no one is actually arguing with you.

Originally Posted by Jophiel

In "software" stores or game stores? Gamestop devotes most of their space to used console games which isn't an option for most PC titles.

What the heck is a "software store"? :P I haven't seen a physical store dedicated to "software" in over a decade - the last one I remember was an Electronics Boutique, and Wikipedia says they rebranded themselves to "EBGames" in the year _2000_.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Airk

What the heck is a "software store"? :P I haven't seen a physical store dedicated to "software" in over a decade - the last one I remember was an Electronics Boutique, and Wikipedia says they rebranded themselves to "EBGames" in the year _2000_.

BlinkingDuck used the term which is why I asked. Once the home computer market shook out to PC and the tiny Mac segment, I don't recall any stores filled with PC games. They replaced the old Commodore/Apple/etc sections with Nintendo, Sega and the rest.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Airk

Age of Conan? Star Wars Galaxies? Shadowbane? Vanguard? Rift? Warhammer Online? Tabula Rasa? It'd be easier to list the MMOs that HAVEN'T failed. Heck, LotRO only saved itself by going free to play. Aion is trying to do the same.

Failures in what way? That they aren't as popular as WOW?

I don't know personally the exact situation for all of these. I know maybe one was a true failure were the studio broke up because of it, but I don't think not being super popular, or ending after a few years, necessarily means they were failures.

Age of Conan made money. It's still running and still making money. Just because it's not raking in a billion dollars a month doesn't mean it's a failure.

Also, consider how many studios have gon broke making simple single player console games?

Failure is a part of the industry. Not sure why you are singling out MMO's.

But I'm NOT saying those things, which is exactly what you're missing. Every example I have been giving has been in an attempt to show just how MUCH room there potentially is for PC gaming to grow if it were actually as easy as consoles. Do you DENY that PC gaming would do BETTER if PCs were exactly as easy to game on as consoles? Simple question, sir.

Ok, then let's stop right here. Maybe I misinterpreted your position.

I do agree that making PC gaming more accessible would be a good thing.

And I think services like Steam, and new hardware like AMD's APU's ARE making it more and more accessible.

But accessibility is only part of the picture. Some of the things that make PC gaming so much better than console gaming are either technical, or hard to convince a largely ignorant market are worth the investment.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Blizzard statement says:

1. We sold 3.5 million copies day 1.

2. We also, on top of that saw 1.2 million WOW user who signed up for a new contract load up Diablo 3 (which came free with that contract).

3. For the week, SALES, number 6.3 million. Not counting South Korea (and actually a few other territories).

I think it's written confusingly, but I think you're reading it wrong. Here are the relevant sections of the PR:

Originally Posted by Blizzard's press release

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. today announced that as of the first 24 hours of Diablo® III’s release, more than 3.5 million copies had been sold, setting the new all-time record for fastest-selling PC game.* That number does not include the more than 1.2 million players who received Diablo III as part of signing up for the World of Warcraft® Annual Pass promotion. Altogether, more than 4.7 million gamers around the world were poised to storm Sanctuary on day 1 of Diablo III’s release -- representing the biggest PC-game launch in history.

As of the first week of the game’s availability, that number had already grown to more than 6.3 million.* The above figures also do not include players in Korean Internet game rooms, where Diablo III has become the top-played game, achieving a record share of more than 39% as of May 22.†

The question is, what does "that number" in the second paragraph refer to? I think the clearest referent is to the number "4.7 million gamers" in the first paragraph, especially given their caveat that the figures "do not include players in Korean Internet game rooms." In other words, they're not discussing sales in their 6.3 million figure; they're discussing people playing the game, a very slight difference.

But a crucial one: the people who got the free copy with an annual pass are included in the folks playing the game.

I'm not clear on the business model for the game rooms. How does that work? Does the proprietor buy a copy of the game per normal? How does the proprietor compensate Blizzard for multiple players? Obviously each player would be using a different account. I suspect that this whole business model isn't included in their figures at all, not under sales or under players, but I really don't know enough about the model to say.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I think it's written confusingly, but I think you're reading it wrong. Here are the relevant sections of the PR:


The question is, what does "that number" in the second paragraph refer to? I think the clearest referent is to the number "4.7 million gamers" in the first paragraph, especially given their caveat that the figures "do not include players in Korean Internet game rooms." In other words, they're not discussing sales in their 6.3 million figure; they're discussing people playing the game, a very slight difference.

But a crucial one: the people who got the free copy with an annual pass are included in the folks playing the game.

I'm not clear on the business model for the game rooms. How does that work? Does the proprietor buy a copy of the game per normal? How does the proprietor compensate Blizzard for multiple players? Obviously each player would be using a different account. I suspect that this whole business model isn't included in their figures at all, not under sales or under players, but I really don't know enough about the model to say.

Hmmm, there Is an asterisk after the 6.3 million, and its footnotes says:

* Based on internal company records and reports from key distribution partners.

So again. Not too clear.

I suspect it's a moot point because it's probably already sold another million units since the press release anyway.

I don't know how the Korean cafe's compensate Blizzard. I do know that the players pay for "game time" at those places.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

You really are dead set on putting down anything on the PC platform aren't? Even making shit up is right up your alley. ANYTHING to bring it down a peg.

The hell why?

Hmm, do I calmly wait for an apology or do I rub it in your face that you're wrong?

Since I'm not the raving lunatic you think I am, I'll just wait for an apology.

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Failures in what way? That they aren't as popular as WOW?

Uh, if that were the criteria, it would include every MMO that isn't WoW, so no.

I don't know personally the exact situation for all of these. I know maybe one was a true failure were the studio broke up because of it, but I don't think not being super popular, or ending after a few years, necessarily means they were failures.

I'm mostly listing "MMOs that are dead (no longer running) or dying (very small subscriber base) and which didn't/probably won't recoup the fairly large initial investment".

Age of Conan made money. It's still running and still making money. Just because it's not raking in a billion dollars a month doesn't mean it's a failure.

That depends on how much money they sunk into making it.

Also, consider how many studios have gon broke making simple single player console games?

Oddly, I can't remember a single, high-profile company. Lots of little studios, but no failures on the other of the huge investment MMO schemes.

Failure is a part of the industry. Not sure why you are singling out MMO's.

Because they cost so much to implement, were being considered the "next big thing", and because they seem to have a much higher than average failure rate. Not saying no one else ever fails, but MMOs fail a LOT.

Ok, then let's stop right here. Maybe I misinterpreted your position.

I do agree that making PC gaming more accessible would be a good thing.

And I think services like Steam, and new hardware like AMD's APU's ARE making it more and more accessible.

What's the APU? I'm not familiar with it. Steam is definitely a big help, though I personally have one frustrated acquaintance who had a lot of problems playing her one Steam game offline. =/

But accessibility is only part of the picture. Some of the things that make PC gaming so much better than console gaming are either technical, or hard to convince a largely ignorant market are worth the investment.

What sort of technical things are you alluding to? Just better visuals/performance? As for "worth the investment" aren't you the one who's constantly maintaining that you can get/build/something an adequate gaming PC for less than the price of a console? Or is that someone else?

[Jophiel]

Off the cuff, I'd guess "technical" includes mods for various games. Compare the experience you can have with Skyrim or Dragon Age on the PC versus consoles.

[SenorBeef]

What is it that makes the WoW annual prepurchase not valid Diablo sale? I doubt that many people are making a yearly commitment to a dying MMO just because they love that MMO - they want diablo. And if they're spending $150 or whatever on a WoW annual pass, if that option wasn't available, you could safely assume that most of them would just buy the $60 diablo. Additionally, blizzard obviously feels that the income they're getting on this deal is enough to offset the income from buying a copy of diablo. So why is this diablo-related influx of cash not as good as a diablo sale and doesn't deserve to count?

Additionally, I've heard, but can not confirm, that asian netcafe services usually have some sort of rental/licensing/leasing agreements with the big games for their cafes rather than buying a lot of individual copies, so I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't show up in the purchase counts.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

What is it that makes the WoW annual prepurchase not valid Diablo sale?

Because that's how Blizzard worded it: "We sold 3.5 million copies and gave away another 1.2 million to Annual Pass subscribers." If Blizzard doesn't consider those copies "sold," I think it makes sense to use their wording.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Additionally, I've heard, but can not confirm, that asian netcafe services usually have some sort of rental/licensing/leasing agreements with the big games for their cafes rather than buying a lot of individual copies, so I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't show up in the purchase counts.

A site license does make a lot of sense for a "game room" location.

[Airk]

Hmmm. And speaking of MMOs, I hear 38 studios was supposed to be making one. :P

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Airk

Hmmm. And speaking of MMOs, I hear 38 studios was supposed to be making one. :P

Apparently Kingdoms of Amalur needed to sell 3 million in order to break even.

I doubt they spent that much on development, unless they had a team of a few hundred working that game.

Probably spent it all in marketing to try and get console gamers to pay attention... since that's the only way they'll buy games, if you spend a few hundred million on TV adds.

:P

[Airk]

We know you want to blame consoles for this, but lets face it, the high profile PC MMO was the main cause of death according to their own mouths; Since they indicate that, at the very least, 49.8 million of their loan was used to fund development on that, and unlike KoA, it has generated exactly zero revenue to date.

Mismanagement? Sure. But they probably could've done better if they'd picked a less ambitious project.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

And a lot of the PC games that I want are older games, as well. I'd prefer to have newer games, but I don't particularly want things like sports sims or FPSs. It's like...I used to go to video arcades a lot. But the games changed, and I don't see games that I'd be interested in any more.

I love older games too. But if that's what you're into, you can't really comment much on the modern state of gaming, since you don't apparently know much about it. There's so much choice today that it's unreal, if there's a kind of game you want to play, I can guarantee it's out there somewhere. If it's old school pac-man/space invaders style games, they're there. If it's Zelda style games you're after, they're still being made (the game type- not just the franchise). Chrono Trigger? Plenty to choose from.

Playing games should be fun. There should be a bare minimum of work that the player should be expected to do before installing and playing the game. I've pretty much decided not to buy any more Civilization games because 1) if I buy the first one to come out, there's going to be another, better version out that will have more content at a lower price and 2) I really don't want to spend several hours trying to tweak my computer in order to get it to work.

It's strange how one person's experience with PC gaming can so wildly differ from another. I have never in my life spent hours tweaking a computer to make a game work. I don't think others who enjoy PC games have either.

Oh, I tell a lie, I once spent an hour making Thief 2 work with Windows 7, but that's to be expected - that's like putting a PS1 game in a PS3, it's always going to bit hit and miss whether it works or not (and more often than not doesn't). The good thing is, Steam has versions of them for very cheap (I picked it up for £3 the other day of Steam) and they work flawlessly.

GOG is also fantastic for older games. No matter what compatibility modes we use with our PCs sometimes they just don't work. But GOG has tons of the golden oldies made compatible for modern OS's. It truly is wonderful and painless.



PC gaming is not dying and was never dying in the first place. The fact is that it cannot die, it's truly impossible for that to ever happen. Every console out there will die, and every console that has ever been released has died (the definition being - no longer being developed for - that's not to say people don't still use them). But I still love console gaming. It's just the nature of the beast means every version has a limited lifespan. That's fine, you have to upgrade your PC at a similar rate (not quite so much nowadays if you're sensible with what you buy).
But, the point is, everybody needs a PC (I include Macs in this definition). Everybody will always own a PC, even if it's a tablet (though I don't see the market fully moving away from laptops and desktops). If people own these machines, developers will make games for them.

And clearly the market is big enough for developers to continue porting over their console games. I'll be downloading Max Payne 3 from Steam in June, even though I own a PS3 and and Xbox 360. The reason? The Steam version can be downloaded indefinitely. It has superior graphics and framerate. There is no disc to crack. And my PC doesn't have quite the same fail rate as my Xbox.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

I'd imagine digital distribution and online retail box purchasing has taken a good bite out of it though. The games still sell, just through other channels.

And (trying to get this thread back on track, as it wasn't supposed to be about whether PC games are dying or are better or whatever) this is what the OP was asking about. For better or worse, download only games are slowly creeping up and replacing disc games. I personally don't like it (as I have said, my internet connection sucks and probably always will*, and I'm also cynical enough to believe that servers won't always exist as well), but I see it as inevitable.

*because I'm a cheap bastard and get my internet from a business across the parking lot that lets me do so after they gave me their password for their secure wifi

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by srzss05

And (trying to get this thread back on track, as it wasn't supposed to be about whether PC games are dying or are better or whatever) this is what the OP was asking about. For better or worse, download only games are slowly creeping up and replacing disc games. I personally don't like it (as I have said, my internet connection sucks and probably always will*, and I'm also cynical enough to believe that servers won't always exist as well), but I see it as inevitable.

*because I'm a cheap bastard and get my internet from a business across the parking lot that lets me do so after they gave me their password for their secure wifi

I don't really think the industry cares abotu people like you.

Honestly, if you are so cheap that you'd rather use shoddy freebie wifi from your neighbor over paying to get internet to your home, how much are you going to be willing to spend on video games?

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Honestly, if you are so cheap that you'd rather use shoddy freebie wifi from your neighbor over paying to get internet to your home, how much are you going to be willing to spend on video games?

If you are so cheap that you'd rather get your car's oil changed by some sketchy guy down at the vacant lot, how much are you going to be willing to spend on sports tickets?

Really? And you were accusing me of insulting people?

I'd argue that while you're probably right that segments of the industry have given up on people with poor quality internet, I think it's completely unrealistic to correlate "so cheap as to be willing to make due with dubious internet" (when, let's face it, if you're not downloading big files or playing games that require a constant connection, most of the time, it doesn't REALLY matter if your internet drops for a minute. My internet could drop for the entire time it takes me to write this, and as long as it's back before I hit "Submit Reply" it'll never make any difference.) with "unwilling to spend meaningful amounts of money on single player entertainment".

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that if any segment of the industry is ignoring people like srzss05 with their bold march towards download only content, it's because the number of people with sketchy internet is small enough for them to write off in light of other gains, not because they wouldn't be losing any revenue from those people.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Airk

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that if any segment of the industry is ignoring people like srzss05 with their bold march towards download only content, it's because the number of people with sketchy internet is small enough for them to write off in light of other gains, not because they wouldn't be losing any revenue from those people.

Probably. Face it, the ratio of boxed retail copies sent to Walmart vs digital download keys is going to be whatever's most profitable for the company. Boxed retail copies incur costs for the discs, plastic clamshells, the box, the art design, the scraps of paper within, the trucks to move them, etc. Digital downloads have none of that. The more popular downloads become, the more the publisher can decide the boxed costs aren't worth it and the "missed" sales aren't worth the hassle. We're not there yet but I wouldn't doubt that we're heading in that direction.