Jimquisition: The Beautiful Irony of PC Gaming

[RandV80]

I'm trying to watch but the video doesn't load. I didn't have a problem watching The Big Picture and testing past Jimquisitions worked.

 

[Smurf McSmurfington]

I'm trying to watch but the video doesn't load. I didn't have a problem watching The Big Picture and testing past Jimquisitions worked.

I had the same problem, just leave it at loading and do something else for a while, eventually it'll start.

 

[LightspeedJack]

Videos not working for me.

 

[Balobo]

Oh for fucks.... look, Cthulu sold like shit on XBL Indies because it was PUT on Xbox Live indies, a service where nearly everything else is shit. If it had been sold on the main storefront it would have sold like gangbusters. On Steam, they pimped the fuck out of that game. The difference in exposure explains the difference in sales, nothing else.

So from this explanation, which platform is more indie friendly?

The Ps3. Hey, the PC may be easy to get indie games on, but ask Hello Games why they didn't put Joe Danger on there. The Ps3 remains the platform where you can actually be paid for it, and unlike the PC, you won't be rejected for being "too fun".

But between the 360 and the PC, like I said, in both cases, its about exposure. If you don't know about a game, you can't buy it. Thats pretty simple. But when exposure is equal, the 360 hands down. Look at the sales of Braid.

So you're going to take one developer's word over the several that have been praising how Steam manages things.

If games are rejected on PC for being "too fun", how come the majority of indie games on Steam are more fun than Joe Danger?

 

[Balobo]

Oh for fucks.... look, Cthulu sold like shit on XBL Indies because it was PUT on Xbox Live indies, a service where nearly everything else is shit. If it had been sold on the main storefront it would have sold like gangbusters. On Steam, they pimped the fuck out of that game. The difference in exposure explains the difference in sales, nothing else.

So from this explanation, which platform is more indie friendly?

The Ps3. Hey, the PC may be easy to get indie games on, but ask Hello Games why they didn't put Joe Danger on there. The Ps3 remains the platform where you can actually be paid for it, and unlike the PC, you won't be rejected for being "too fun".

But between the 360 and the PC, like I said, in both cases, its about exposure. If you don't know about a game, you can't buy it. Thats pretty simple. But when exposure is equal, the 360 hands down. Look at the sales of Braid.

So you're going to take one developer's word over the several that have been praising how Steam manages things.

I'm sorry, how many developers have been praising how Sony or Microsoft runs their online marketplaces? Steam is run competently. As is the PsN and XBLA. On the latter two, however, there are more sales for indie titles if they recieve the same amount of exposure.

Super Meat Boy received A LOT of exposure on XBLA, but sold better on PC. Care to explain?

 

[Balobo]

Oh for fucks.... look, Cthulu sold like shit on XBL Indies because it was PUT on Xbox Live indies, a service where nearly everything else is shit. If it had been sold on the main storefront it would have sold like gangbusters. On Steam, they pimped the fuck out of that game. The difference in exposure explains the difference in sales, nothing else.

So from this explanation, which platform is more indie friendly?

The Ps3. Hey, the PC may be easy to get indie games on, but ask Hello Games why they didn't put Joe Danger on there. The Ps3 remains the platform where you can actually be paid for it, and unlike the PC, you won't be rejected for being "too fun".

But between the 360 and the PC, like I said, in both cases, its about exposure. If you don't know about a game, you can't buy it. Thats pretty simple. But when exposure is equal, the 360 hands down. Look at the sales of Braid.

So you're going to take one developer's word over the several that have been praising how Steam manages things.

I'm sorry, how many developers have been praising how Sony or Microsoft runs their online marketplaces? Steam is run competently. As is the PsN and XBLA. On the latter two, however, there are more sales for indie titles if they recieve the same amount of exposure.

Super Meat Boy received A LOT of exposure on XBLA, but sold better on PC. Care to explain?

You have a very very bad definition of "A LOT" (i.e. a completely wrong one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Meat_Boy#Development_and_marketing

I remember seeing a lot of ads for it, but whatever. This brings up another point: Microsoft didn't advertise this game. What makes the 360 indie friendly if MS only advertises Gears of War and Halo? The PS3, on the other hand, has complex hardware that a lot of indie developers might struggle with (also not forgetting the fact that Sony apparently didn't want Super Meat Boy on their system before it sold a ton). How are they more indie friendly than PC? If they're so much more indie friendly, why do indie developers continue to target PC? Pretty sure more games get rejected on PS3 for being "too fun" than they do on PC. That's what makes games easier to put out on PC, of course.

 

[Danzavare]

Great video, but I hated eye. It was a buggy piece of shit and infinite respawning really pisses me off when a fucking attack chopper comes at you every minute along with rocket launcher wielding goons.

Now if only console players would listen to this video...

You don't need to upgrade a PC every year and it doesn't cost thousands for a PC. Also the games are cheaper.

The mis-information annoys me.

But it's not misinformation. If I want to play something like Dues EX I do need a really good and really expensive computer. A lot of the big mainstream games are graphics intensive and you can't get past the fact that you need a computer than can cope with that. You don't /need/ to put lots of money into a good computer, it's just if you don't do so you miss most of the mainstream releases...?

if you are statisfied with playing it on a graphical level identical to an xbox360, you can get a very, VERY cheap pc, for less or about the same as you would have to invest in a console. of course, if you want everything cranked up to the max, you'll have to pay for it. but don't forget: an xbox is just a small, pretty outdated pc itself. how many years is that thing old now? 4? you can get a 4 year old pc with similar power for next to nothing. this age old argument for consoles is nothing but fabrication and/or misinformed drivel.

Is buying a PC in America cheaper than it is in Australia? Was that 4 year old PC around $300 4 years ago? I'm wondering because 'next to nothing' isn't the price I've been quoted for a decent PC. My friend saved money by buying part by part and built his PC for $1500 Australian (His seems to be top of the line, or at least can play Crisis 2 full quality without a problem). Every store and person I ask has told me to expect a minimum price of $1000 (I'm going to assume $800 with a generous discount) to make recent games playable. That's a lot of money considering $300 (I'm going to ignore the fact I was able to get the 360 free with trade-ins.) got me a system that at least for the next half decade or so will allow me to play the latest games without need for purchasing updates.

I suppose my skepticism toward your post stems from the bolded sentence above. For me it's not a matter of picking sides. I went from PC as my primary gaming platform, to the PS1, to the Dreamcast, to the Xbox, to another PC and then the 360. I generally just pick the one that's affordable and has the most to offer for its price. I have no logical reason to inherently prefer one means of gaming over the other. I mean, maybe you do have a cheaper means of obtaining a decent PC than I do, but that doesn't turn my view on price into misinformed drivel. (Unless every PC retailer I've been to is hatching some conspiracy just to spite me...?) I mean you have to acknowledge there's a safety blanket with consoles in that for the next X years everything released will be marked with 'Xbox 360', and as long as it's marked as such I can play it. This guarantee was made available to me from day one for a fair price. I lack this with the PC.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a better PC. My current PC laptop (Purchased at around $450, but yeah, I get laptops don't perform as well as desktops) is fine running most old Steam games, but still slows down when the screen gets busy (Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is what I have in mind now, a 2006 game I think). But as it stands I'm experiencing the best of both worlds for a pretty fair price.

I don't know, maybe if I had more disposable income I'd be more likely to proclaim that PC as my one and only, but given the resources available to me, it's just not as viable as you imply it is.

You don't need a really expensive PC to run deux ex. I have a 2 year old PC that was around £600 and it runs DE:HR just fine at 1920x1080. A cheaper PC these days could run it with no issues.

That's $900 Australian. ;_; Unless by cheaper you mean a PC that costs less than half of that number you've lost me.

 

[Kathinka]

wicked snip of doom

depends what you consider a "decent pc" really. if you want to of the line tech, yes, you can easily go north of 1000 euros. want something that is as powerfull as the current xbox360? you are in with a few hundred bucks. think about it, a 360 is just a few outdated single core cpu's, an ati gpu chip with what, 10mb, and laughable 512 mb of ram. parts like that you will get virtually thrown after you, assembeling a system of the same power range could probably be done for below 200 euros.

 

[Danzavare]

wicked snip of doom

depends what you consider a "decent pc" really. if you want to of the line tech, yes, you can easily go north of 1000 euros. want something that is as powerfull as the current xbox360? you are in with a few hundred bucks. think about it, a 360 is just a few outdated single core cpu's, an ati gpu chip with what, 10mb, and laughable 512 mb of ram. parts like that you will get virtually thrown after you, assembeling a system of the same power range could probably be done for below 200 euros.

Well, decent to me is one that can run new games smoothly at about a medium graphical setting (or I suppose what's equivalent to a 360 game with good graphics), and that can keep up the ability to run ALL the new games for the next 4-5 years after it's made. (Similar lifespan to a console) When you give me that figure, do you mean it can be done now for that much or at the time of the 360's release?

 

[LogicNProportion]

I think this was your best episode ever!

I fucking love EYE!

And I came buckets at the chainsword at the end!!!

WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU GET IT!?

 

[awdrifter]

While I agree with what Jim said in this vid, even playing games with good graphics on the PC isn't that expensive. When Dirt 3 first came out, there were video cards that gives you a free digital copy when you buy the card. So you might be spending $200 on a card, but you saved money by not having to buy the game. I'm running a 3 years old rig and I can still play DX:HR at nearly max settings.

 

[Woe Is You]

And like I said, that they actually get paid to put indie games on the Ps3 instead of the PC. And once again, give me one single reason why Hello Games would put Joe Danger on the Ps3 over the PC if the PC is more indie friendly.

Being able to release a game however you want it whenever you want is a good enough reason. Releasing on console means you have to follow a ton of guidelines just to make the game work in a similar manner to every other game on that platform. On the PC, a platform where nobody is really telling you how to release things, you can do as you want. This can be a good or a bad thing but it's worked for Minecraft and Spiderweb Softare RPGs.

Sure, releasing an indie game and marketing it outside of a huge platform like Steam entails a lot of risk but it isn't really impossible. Minecraft is proof of this.

 

[Fearzone]

This is all true, but it isn't untrue for other gaming systems.

Most of my PS3 gaming isn't the AAA but the $10-$15 PSN downloads that usually don't push the technology. I have an expensive PC and PS3, but most of my gaming this year has been on the PSP, which isn't know for graphical superiority, so it has to compensate with really good games, and most of those are ports from older systems. As for Doom, yeah, I was pretty much done with FPS's after Quake 2.

It is a matter of taste: does one like the finest graphics or first-rate gameplay? Since one tends to come at the cost of the other--at the very least maxing out your graphics engine shortens the length of the game, and also tends to impair performance--we have to choose, and games aren't still spoken of 10 years down the road just because of how they look.

I think there may be an analogy somewhere in all of this with women.

 

[Balobo]

Braid, Limbo, Splosion Man, Castle Crashers, Bastion, oh yeah, Micrsoft TOTALLY only advertise Halo and Gears. /sarc

And like I said, that they actually get paid to put indie games on the Ps3 instead of the PC. And once again, give me one single reason why Hello Games would put Joe Danger on the Ps3 over the PC if the PC is more indie friendly.

Three of those games are on PC, what point are you trying to make? Are there sales figures to prove that those games sold better on 360 than on PC?

Why would they put Joe Danger on PC? Enlighten me, why WOULDN'T they? Also, quit using one single developer as a standard for everybody. "oh Hello Games won't put Joe Danger on PC that means the ps3 is more indie friendly with its confusing hardware and stricter development policies."

 

[Balobo]

Braid, Limbo, Splosion Man, Castle Crashers, Bastion, oh yeah, Micrsoft TOTALLY only advertise Halo and Gears. /sarc

And like I said, that they actually get paid to put indie games on the Ps3 instead of the PC. And once again, give me one single reason why Hello Games would put Joe Danger on the Ps3 over the PC if the PC is more indie friendly.

Three of those games are on PC, what point are you trying to make? Are there sales figures to prove that those games sold better on 360 than on PC?

Why would they put Joe Danger on PC? Enlighten me, why WOULDN'T they? Also, quit using one single developer as a standard for everybody. "oh Hello Games won't put Joe Danger on PC that means the ps3 is more indie friendly with its confusing hardware and stricter development policies."

"and zero cost development system meaning it is literally impossible to lose money putting an indie game on as your budget will be given to you up front by Sony before you start, whereas there are a tonne of people who have gone broke putting their works on PC". Yeah, who's paying people to make indie games for the PC again? Answer in three, two, one, yes you are correct, it is NO-ONE!

And, yes. Over half of Braids sales were on 360, and 2/3's of Limbos.

Didn't they get the money because they had an exclusivity deal? They had originally planned to bring it to XBLA and PC as well. Yes, if you get paid to make something exclusive you're going to get money.

Also, please give sources for these sales figures. Let me remind you that LIMBO hasn't been on PC for nearly as long as it has been on XBLA. How are the 360 and PSN more indie friendly again?

 

[CBanana]

PC is definitely a better platform for indies than consoles. A PC developer doesn't have to shell out $10K for a console development kit which for an indie developer can be a big deal.

As for distribution services, Steam definitely does more to market indies than XBLA/XBLIG or PSN. Right now on Steam, Bastion and Rock of Ages are being advertised right beside AAA games such as Skyrim or Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

It also helps that AAA developers are often snubbing the PC leaving more of a vacuum that indie developers can help fill.

Finally, even if Steam, XBLA/XBLIG, and PSN all reject the game, it's still possible to publish your game. For example, Minecraft at the moment doesn't use any of those services.