alanschu

Since I reread these in AGX-17's quote: Right off the top of my head there's Battlefield 3. Just for clarification, AAA titles as they stand are a new invention. They didn't exist at all 10 years ago as they didn't have the economies of scale to justify their development costs. Unfortunately it's tough to find games that match your criteria (selling over a million units) because of restrictions on releasing digital sales numbers (Valve has it written in that neither party can release units sold numbers without the consent of both parties). However, I wouldn't be surprised if a game like Europa Universalis 3 has sold through over a million units. It's something that none of us are able to verify, however.

The "AAA titles" (a term this thread is making me loathe) are the biiig budget ones. Even as a PC gamer, I recognize that the economies of scale necessary compromise the PC, especially in an area of exclusivity. I just don't consider that to be "PC gaming is dead" and in fact, I feel PC gaming is going through a resurgence, because finally the market is enabling smaller focused games to be viable.

It was a bit of an outlier in this regard though. I don't know how successful it was. EA Sports handicapped their PC sports games when they kept releasing Gen2 versions of games while the PS3 and 360 got the Gen3 versions.

Evidently he likes, and wants, more of the "AAA" style games. At least, ones that are exclusive to the PC.

The point about religiously Christian motivated crimes is to point out that all religions have some level of people that are willing to do horrific things in the name of their religion. An important thing, IMO, to note about the comparison is the relative age of each religion. Think of how old Christianity was when it was doing all sorts of atrocities. Now think about how old Islam is.

He'll ignore them or point out that they are "politically motivated" rather than religiously.

Bollocks. You're precisely saying that PC gaming is dead because they don't make the games that you want. Which are the higher profile, AAA titles. I also contend that you are, in fact, not much of a hardcore PC gamer, since by your own admission you feel that most games are better played on the console, since that's what they are made for. As a PC gamer, most games I play, AAA or otherwise, I prefer to play on my PC. I consider it a superior gaming machine (though I recognize that my opinion is not held by the majority). You discount game styles that you don't care for (MMOs) or feel "don't count" (smaller developers/indie studios), and use it to substantiate a position that, because PC gaming exclusives and the meteoric budget increases that have come this recent console generation, mean less "AAA" games on PC. This is because economies of scale are needed for those games. But I still say that anyone that says "PC gaming is dead" because there aren't many crazy high profile PC exclusive titles, is drawing an arbitrary line in a sand that doesn't reflect reality. You have moved the goal posts a lot as well, from discounting various games outright, to claiming it was things like DRM that were the cause for the decline in PC gaming. Fine then. Discount them. Show me how much of the $20 billion in PC revenues is dedicated towards Facebook gaming (a segment of gaming that EA spent millions investing in, only to now cut short due to lack of growth and revenues). How much of it is MMOs? You seem to think it's most of it. Why? How much is "a LOT less than $20 billion?" Lets look at World of Warcraft: 10 million subscribers (which is probably an overestimate), at $15 per month (also an estimate. China doesn't actually "subscribe" to the game, and Blizzard only gets licensing fees. I don't know how much this is), at 12 months, is $1.8 billion in revenue. World of Warcraft is not bringing in a quarter to a third of the $20 billion I am discussing, and it is by far the biggest MMO out there in terms of revenues. Sorry, I feel your estimates of WoW's contributions are excessive. Prove it. I don't believe you. Especially when the PC gaming market was exploding in terms of revenues recently. (19% growth in 2010. Reaching a record 16 billion dollars. It really seems like the "billions and billions" of dollars lately is the new forms of monetization (free to play, social gaming, etc). You say it's replacing it. Prove it. I need more than "I read an article that said it was close to the porn industry." The only thing you've given is NPD revenues (which is absurd - NPD is quickly becoming irrelevant). No I'm not, because you're saying that NPD numbers are accurate (they aren't). EA expects to make more revenue digitally in 2013. NPD numbers cannot account for that (and they don't). NPD also restricts itself to the US market. Reuters shows the following for gaming revenues (for 2011): 2011 Global Revenue: $65 billion 2011 Global Retail: $29.5 billion Your console estimates are still low, because NPDs numbers have been low for some time, and they get worse every year. If you believe NPD, gaming revenues have been in steep decline for quite a while now.

Just came across this: It sounds like PC gaming is "dead" because it doesn't make the games that you want. Unfortunate for you, but I'm still very happy with my PC gaming hobby.

This analogy is meaningless. PC Gaming pulled in $20 billion this year. Given that former EA University Liaison, John Buchanan, described a demographic in 2004 that mirrors exactly what we see right now (consoles boom bust, while PC gaming slowly and consistently grows) - sorry my source was a 1 on 1 conversation with him at the University of Alberta, where he was recruiting new graduates, so I can't provide a link to his comments. I'm skeptical that PC gaming was "literally billions upon billions" of dollars (in any amount that extends beyond current growth), and your vague references to porn comparisons aren't super convincing. The best I could find was this which states that, in the US, $13.33 billion was spent on pornography. Which, assuming PC gaming had a consistent 8% growth rate like we had this past year, would put its revenues at $11.66 billion. So are we still in the same ballpark as adult entertainment? It also had PC sales (principally digital). The 3.4 million mentioned by Square-Enix omits digital sales (on all platforms). Just say who it is. You obviously aren't hinting at someone like Paradox or the likes, so who are you talking about?

Huh, 5 minutes to go and success for AR-K.

Well, it's important to note that as the person making the claim, the burden of proof is on you: For instance, however, you mention that EA made "the entirety of last year's PC incomes." So, it seems as though your estimates as to what the PC revenues are, are incorrect. WHere are you getting your numbers, as I get mine from the earnings call that EA puts forward, which is a requirement for a publicly traded company, and would receive penalties from the SEC if it was fraudulent. Especially given that, from an MMO point of view, EA's PC revenue isn't heavily dominated by MMO performance. Granted, PC gaming is going to probably include Facebook gaming. It's probably important to note that EA seems to be backpedaling on social gaming, however, as they have closed up a lot of their games (and laid a lot of people off) that worked on these games. EA isn't going to do this if social gaming is where the bulk of their revenue comes from. That games are multiplatform is not indicative of PC gaming being dead. If your measuring stick for PC gaming being dead is simply the amount of PC exclusive titles, then I'd wager your measuring stick is not a very accurate one. Yes, economies of scale place a restriction on PC exclusive titles. Having said that, by extension console exclusive titles themselves are also rare. Unlike a decade ago, it's easier to make a game (particularly an XBOX 360 game) also work on the PC. After all, a decade ago, PC gaming was also declared dead. Although by your account, a decade ago seems to be one of the golden ages of PC gaming. Other advantages PC gaming now has, compared to a decade ago, is that barriers of entry have been removed. How many kickstarter projects have been started for console games? Take a look at how many of those games are PC exclusive? Why? Because the retail barrier has been knocked down by digital distribution. A company CAN make a smaller game, and not have to worry about fighting and paying for retail shelf space. Furthermore, retail stores (especially tech focused ones like Gamestop) had a financial incentive for marginalizing PC game sales: used games. PC games typically are not resellable, and as such, Gamestop can't count on making the huge margins they do off reselling used games. Even if the sales for both platforms were identical, it'd still make more sense for Gamestop to push console sales, because retail will make more money off of it. It wasn't a decade ago, however. Of course, if you equate "Multiplatform" with "Port," then you've allowed yourself to be put into an unfalsifiable situation (i.e. your hypothesis would be academically rejected because your hypothesis prevents you from ever being wrong). The fact is, EA does more revenue off PC game sales than it did 10 years ago. What you're observing, is that the console market exploded. Some numbers for you: In FY 2006 EA brought in $417 million in PC revenues. In FY 2013 EA brought in $928 million in PC revenues. So in 7 years, EA's revenues went up about 125% for PC gaming alone. A $511 million dollar increase. The market may be smaller as an overall piece of the pie (which is being split in a lot more directions now). The margins of these sales, however, are more likely higher than they are lower, due to the prevalence of digital distribution. I'm sure you even think that a game like Battlefield 3 is a console game ported to PC.... I play them on the PC because the PC is my gaming platform of choice. They keep making them for PC because people like me keep buying them. In other words, the market isn't dead.

Note that "net revenue" is not the same as "net profit." Gross revenue wouldn't be too much higher than net, as the "net" aspect takes into account things like returns and any discounts offered and the like. Still, PC gaming tends to make up anywhere from 1/5 to 1/3 of EA's revenue any particular quarter. Unfortunately the profit margins aren't really listed on the press releases.

PC game sales are not 1/25th what they were a little over a decade ago. Repeating this over and over (especially without sources), doesn't make it true. If PC game sales were down to 1/25th of what they were a decade ago, I wouldn't be making games for the PC. Nevermind that, through something like Origin, EA is able to make absurd, absurd margins on a game like SimCity, which is seen as a huge financial success (despite it's release issues) because it was able to sell well over a million units in the first couple of weeks. Meanwhile, 4-5 million units of Tomb Raider is not met warmly by Square-Enix. This is in large part because margins have improved a lot (and a lot of the risk, diminished) through digital sales. Retailers don't sell as much, because a lot of people stopped going to retailers to buy their PC games. PC hardcore gaming does what it always does. Grow slowly at a relatively consistent rate. It's like the bonds or money markets of gaming, while the consoles are the equity stocks. The issue that PC games have, relative to console games, is that (especially with Gen2, but it continued on to Gen3) is that console gaming exploded upwards in its popularity. So it may have a smaller piece of the overall pie (which does influence where people direct their efforts), it's certainly not 1/25th the market of what it was a decade ago. I think you have a weird, and incorrect, definition of the word dead. To be perfectly frank, your post comes across as something that is more just to get a rise out of people. But then, you've already painted yourself into a corner where you can't allow yourself to be wrong. Any protests is simply "from a hardcore PC crowd that has its head in the sand." All the while, you post no numbers and talk down to your audience.

No it doesnt. It means that I haven't heard of any of their games make a splash which considering how much time I spend on this hobby means that they're either garbage or not featured in any of the more popular publications. OK, it probably means that you regard CoD/ BF or MoW/ CoH as wargames if you think you like them but have never heard of Matrix/ Slitherine. They'd be the biggest maker/ publisher of computer wargames (as opposed to fps/ rts using war as a setting) by a fair margin. This. As a wargamer Matrix is certainly on my radar as *the* place I go to find wargames.. They make niche games, but they are hardcore, grognard style games (I have lots months of my life to War in the Pacific and it's Admiral's Edition as well). Battles from the Bulge was also really well done. Given that Slitherine also did remakes of the classic Close Combat games, I don't think any grognard could have possibly not heard of them (or Matrix).

I still need to play through those. I enjoyed the base DOW2 game. My friend and I play through it co-op. We're currently pounding through Saints Row 3 at the moment.

Distant Worlds was interesting, though I found the unfortunate thing about that game was that it sort of just played itself haha. Ironically I found the AI routines to be sufficient enough that it was usually optimal for me to do nothing.

Wizardry 8 was my introduction to the Wizardry franchise, and I remember enjoying it. I never did finish it, however. It does have the wiki style dialogue, however, which I do not typically enjoy. I remember the combat and level progression system, however, to be a lot of fun.

You're right, what consumers are playing will have a huge impact. As for your "it seems like the developers" jab, at this point I'm not even sure what you're talking about. I figured it didn't need explaining that my statement was along the lines of "all else being equal." If PS4 has 80% marketshare, then yeah the PS4 is going to be the platform people develop for. A) So basically people are being babies? No one is forcing them to buy the damn system. So why the outrage? Or is it because there's a fear that other people might not give a crap so those people end up losing (at which point, it's market forces. Sorry). I mean, we already have people going "What, I can't sell used games!?" Except that it sounds like you can, it just has to be done online. You can even trade your games online with your friends. B) It hasn't affected PC gaming, and it's not going to signal any collapse for console gaming either. Sorry. Steam has often been seen as the saviour of PC gaming. C) Really? I know that the microphone will be on, and available to respond to "Xbox on." Does this mean that the camera is always on too (I'll need to see a link)? I have seen mountains of people equate this to big brother is always watching, but given people's penchant for fear mongering and excessive use of hyperbole? The microphone is on. The clapper is always listening for my claps... I guess it was a giant invasion of privacy as well. Or any voice activated... anything. From Polygon: The Xbox One's Kinect microphone is always listening and waiting for specific commands, Microsoft's hardware program manager John Link told Polygon today. Microsoft revealed today that Xbox One will support commands native commands for powering the console on and off. Xbox 360 Kinect users can power off the console by using voice commands to navigate the menus, but not power on their consoles with the device. In response to a question about whether that functionality means that Kinect is always on, Link said that Kinect is always listening, but in a limited capacity. It also helps ensure developers can count on the peripheral, he said. I don't see anything about the camera always watching you. Yeah, Microsoft is banking on the game system requiring online. If that's a deal breaker for people, then it'd sure as heck be awesome for those people to acknowledge this in a less "frothing at the mouth" way. It does nothing positive for the gaming community in general. As for all the hypothetical situations people paint up: logic does not mean reality. You totally pull numbers out of your ass (Timmy only gets $2.50) because it paints things in a worse light and frankly, begins to wholly undermine your entire argument because it's no longer based on fact. Now you're just fear mongering like everyone else, imagining worst case scenarios that have no foundation in what has been mentioned because, near as I can tell, bananas. This is a complete mental fabrication that has no bearing with what we know. There's not a hint of "price control" in the online used market that their discussing. In fact, the link I pointed out straight up stated the you can openly trade games. Hard to take a cut from $0 transactions. Why not? Because you imagine it so? I'm sorry, how big is this cut again? You seem to have pulled it out of thin air. Exactly, Microsoft could easily absorb taking a very small cut, because they'd be dealing with volume. Given we don't have any idea what any supposed cut would be, you're doing nothing more than fear mongering at this point, and it's the type of thing that frustrates the hell out of me. Unless something new has come out in the past day, you have zero visibility on the bolded. If gamers are able to choose what they sell their game at, they are not bound by Gamestop's prices and can sell it for whatever they want. This means that the market could very well have the used game price point set at a level where, even after a cut from Microsoft, end users still make more money than they would selling to Gamestop. From the article I linked (emphasis mine): We don't have the details to make the claims that you're making. You're making up numbers and spreading misinformation. This isn't productive. On a final note, if it's possible to trade games digitally, the Xbox One would allow me to do something I've never been able to do before: easily lend a game to Calax.

I actually enjoyed that game, and was my primary introduction to the Warhammer 40k universe haha.

For myself, PC games and console games are typically the same price today ($60). Having said that, games inevitably come down in price. Is waiting not an option?

The always online requirements are different than Diablo 3, though, and I think that that is still important. It's fine if you think that authenticating once per day is too draconian for you, but I think a lot of the intense reaction is in part motivated by the fact that many people may not. For all the hoopla a game like Diablo III received (or even SimCity), both games were still quite successfull (Diablo III likely absurdly so). It's not like either game hid the fact that online connections were required. For myself, the online check in for the 360 is definitely not a deal breaker. What will prevent me from buying it is the usual "I'm not really a console gamer." If I were to buy it, however, some of the extra features are things that I would still consider too. I actually almost bought a PS3 because it doubled as a bluray player, but ultimately passed on the console entirely when I examined how much I actually sit at home and watch movies. The primary reason I have a 360 is because my friends and I often enjoyed games of Rock Band, though I have bought other games since then because I do have the console.

More kids may play on console, but I think the association that console gamers are kids is no longer correct. Kids are also going to be the ones that grow up "not knowing any better" (i.e. new kids that start gaming will live in a world where the Xbox One was their first console). Another thing to consider is that there is a chance that, with developers getting support via the used game transactions and the like, it may be a developer preferred platform. Depends on what Sony's tools are like too, however.

Well, in the post-mortem they basically talk about Sid (and Jake) coming up with a working prototype from scratch over the course of a weekend, so I suppose it would depend on what one means by "grind work."

Register on purpose? Like a CD-Key? Part of what I find particularly fascinating is that console players are slowly moving to an even playing field with PC. I haven't been able to sell a used PC game for over a decade (since people abused it like mad), although I'm sure some places still bought used games. It didn't explode the PC gaming scene when such things were no longer common place, so I am not convinced that this is some fatal flaw that will ultimately undermine all of console gaming. I suppose it might, but we'll see I suppose.

It entirely depends on what they mean by "You will be able to trade and sell your Xbox games online." MS looks to be pushing heavily into digital, and have effectively resorted physical media to be simply a delivery device, not what is necessary to play the game. I'm curious if people are still as upset if they can do the things they want, but digitially. Want to lend a game to a friend, "trade" it with him for free (or some game you want to play). Licenses are swapped and people have access to the other game. It sounds like you just won't be able to lend with physical media anymore.