Less and less PC version of games

[AndyFromMonday]

I'd be up for continued discussion after getting time for proper research. If I can still form words after 2 weeks of physics and obligatory week drunk afterwards then I'll attempt to put something together.

Drunk weekends are awesome until you realize the next morning the house is trashed and you're cuddling your best friend. Yeah...

 

[Continuity]

Ummm, What? I think there are more games on the PC than any other platform.

 

[Shilkanni]

Piracy rates are higher on the PC platform, but much more importantly sales are lower!
Piracy is a convenient scapegoat amongst people who think that a pirated game is a lost sale.

I would be keen to buy Red Dead or LA Noir on PC if they gave it a decent port job.

 

[BRex21]

Well I can't take time out of my busy "Learn particle physics in less than 12 hours" schedule to do a full analysis. Fortunately this seems to be pretty complete http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

Since it's fairly long, I'd recommend skipping straight to section 5 where several game devs are sourced saying that piracy is a major issue preventing PC releases. Especially the one by Cliffy B. It also goes into detail about other reasons as to why console versions are more common than PC gaming.

What game developers think about piracy is irrelevant. I'm asking for DATA, hard DATA. Where does all that downloaded data go to? I have a hard time believing piracy is the main reason developers are moving away from PC gaming when they won't even release everything that is relevant in regards to piracy and losing profits. All we get is a rep saying the company/publisher lost money due to piracy and shows us a graph or tells us that the game has been downloaded X number of times which is irrelevant.

Also, Cliffy B. is an asshole who screwed over PC gamers and when sales bricked he blamed it all on piracy. His opinions is not only irrelevant, it's abhorent.

The move to console gaming is a logical one in the eyes of major publishers. Consoles are a closed system that you can control quite easily as opposed to the openness of the PC. Why do you think most major companies are attempting to enter the PC market by attempting to create a closed system of their own to work with? Bioware/EA, Microsoft, Valve, CD Projekt are all companies that have created a closed system or rather platform from which they attempt to sell their games. I'd say Valve is doing it right since their platform makes it possible for small indie titles to gain an audience plus their deals aren't that bad. The same applies to CD Projekt's Good Old Games though the latest entry on their Witcher franchise has made me doubt their commitment to PC gaming. On the other hand EA and Microsoft are focused entirely on screwing the customer over. The point system is there for a reason and all that fucking DLC is also there for the same reason.

Also, good luck with your thing. How about we continue this discussion after you're done?

YOU don't need data, THEY do. THEY have already decided on that data, so your opinion of whether X downloads matters is irrelevant. All that he's saying is that "Game developers decided to stop supporting PC gaming because they saw that PC gamers were pirating their product." Given quotations, that's hard to refute. I would tend to agree with them that even if you believe the (somewhat mistaken) belief that "Not all downloads are a lost sale", just assuming some mild percentage of them ARE lost sales (not a big stretch; not provable, but also not illogical) means a huge chunk of revenue lost. In such a competitive market, that really matters to them. You want proof that it matters to them? Easy; they said so.

It's like some people think there's some conspiracy about how game developers secretly want PCs to die for their own cruel motivations, and are boycotting PC development until it does. It's not like that; they will put their game anywhere it makes a profit.

Consoles may be a closed system, but they are closed off TO the company that makes them. Rockstar doesn't control the 360; Microsoft does. On the PC, any developer can create their own online store or player-stats tracking database.

If everyone stopped pirating games so incessantly, we'd see a return to PC gaming.

I would argue that i have every right to view the data and come to my own conclusions. If any reputible study is made and you see in the paper Scientists prove X causes Y, there is a study behind that, you can look up the study and determine for youself if given the same data you would reach the same conclusion or if you find its anecdotal and cherrypicked. As an anal person i often look these things up and frequently find that data presented does not add up to the conclusion without taking several leaps.
In Hillary Clintons bid for head of the democratic party she had a study that "proved" videogames make you violent, because it incresed certain areas of brain activity associated with agression, adrenaline and endorphin levels. While this is true, these studies failed to mention is that virtually the same side effects from virtually anything competative that you enjoy. Playing poker yeilded the same results.
The problem here is that Andy asked for data and was shown an editorial, someones personal opinions on the matter with a sprinkling of the data and cherry picked quotes that support his case. Koroush Ghazi's statements are not fact, after a little bit of diging I found entirely different numbers to be the norm depending on how its presented.
http://torrentfreak.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-most-pirated-game-of-2010-101228/
The most popular games being pirated on the Wii and X-box are around 25% those of the PC, while you may see drastically more copies of Fallout 3 being downloaded on PC, that pales in comparason to the difference between Super Mario Galaxy 2's rates from Wii to PC. Lastly these numbers dont reflect hard numbers of how many people downloaded from a bit-torrent, if you try 3 torrents before getting one that works you will be recorded as 3, download something with a virus, add one more to the count, false numbers can really add up. This is why its important to look at the data yourself if you want to make an informed decision.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No pirates are not to blame lower profit margins are. People need to stop treating pirates as a lost sale as they aren't. They wouldn't of bought the game anyway. This does not make it right by any stretch of the imagination but people who pirate tend to be quite cheap/tight even though they bought a ?200+ system. Pirating is just as prevalent on consoles you just have less tangible figures to deal with.

Seriously people piracy is not the reason it is the excuse the reason is simple but unfortunate economics.

 

[PhiMed]

a couple of developers and publishers have explicitly stated that piracy of their games on PC has directly led to them not wanting to port future games onto the platform..

I think thats abit stupid really of them to think that considering console pirates are out there to, it might not be as easy to play pirated games on a console at first but afterwards im sure it's basically the same.

Yes, console piracy exists. It is not as prevalent as PC piracy, though.

This is primarily because you have to hack a console 3 times just to make it play a pirated game. Most people own a PC, which is pirate-ready, so people who wish to pirate games usually don't bother cutting through all the red tape involved with consoles and do it with a PC instead.

 

[PhiMed]

No pirates are not to blame lower profit margins are. People need to stop treating pirates as a lost sale as they aren't. They wouldn't of bought the game anyway. This does not make it right by any stretch of the imagination but people who pirate tend to be quite cheap/tight even though they bought a ?200+ system. Pirating is just as prevalent on consoles you just have less tangible figures to deal with.

Seriously people piracy is not the reason it is the excuse the reason is simple but unfortunate economics.

I don't know about the assertion that piracy is "just as prevalent on consoles". It's certainly not true worldwide, and I doubt it's even true in developed nations. Console piracy requires a good deal more technical expertise than PC piracy. This is, of course, except on the Wii, because Nintendo has no ability to punish pirates. "You'll ban me from online play? Oh no!" The only reason it's less ubiquitous is because most of the Wii's target demo isn't tech savvy enough to pull it off.

As for the claim that "They wouldn't of bought the game anyway" because they're "cheap/tight". That's debatable, but I think it's incorrect. If it was actually impossible to pirate I think some of these people would turn into sales. Some people do it because of frugality, but I think a lot of other people do it because of a combination of ease of commission and lack of morals. If it wasn't so easy, they might never have done it, in other words.

 

[EllEzDee]

Can we blame the people who pirate games for it?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, a couple of developers and publishers have explicitly stated that piracy of their games on PC has directly led to them not wanting to port future games onto the platform.

And some people have the nerve to blame console players while never having bought a game in their life.

Developing for a console is a piece of piss. Developing for PC is much harder. Why spend time porting it to a platform that marks only 1/3 of the market, when the other 2/3 are more easily completed and/or already satisfied? On top of that, developers are getting lazier and lazier, and gamers are starting to notice. While the PC users can easily decide for themselves with an un-bought copy, a console gamer has to buy the game to realise it's shit.

There's your piracy for you.

 

[Hiphophippo]

I can't say this really bothers me. I've never really been interested in a port. For my PC I want "PC Games", of which there are tons and they keep coming.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Can we blame the people who pirate games for it?

No, I don't think so. While piracy is a good reason for people to not develop games exclusively for the PC it really doesn't make any sense for them to not release ports. Compared to the rest of the game manufacturing process, porting is really quite easy and cheap. Even if 90% of interested PC gamers pirate your game, that 10% of transactions will be more than enough to make your port profitable. Hell, even if you just break even with a port you're still increasing awareness of the game and associated company in question by having more people play it thus increasing sales of your future products.

One good reason for going console exclusive is the same reason anyone goes single console exclusive: a contractual partnership with the hardware manufacturer to increase sales of the hardware by engendering competition between platforms.

There is no good reason to do a multiplatform console release and not make a PC port.

 

[pepitko]

You can't really find actual figures of pirated games on consoles vs the PC. But if I look at myself and my friends as an example, there is much less pirating on consoles and much more on PCs. IMO, to understand why developers consider consoles to be a priority, you need to look at sales volume of console games vs PC games and the picture is crystal clear.

 

[Agayek]

Crytek switched to consoles in an attempt to appeal to the "Call of Duty" crowd because the PC crowd wouldn't swallow the shallow, unoptimized and overall shitty FPS they released back in 2007. Piracy was also a non issue back then for Crytek because most pirates weren't able to run the game. Actually, barely any one was able to run the game. The reason Crytek switched to consoles was because the market was not only wider but that particular market didn't ask for complexity as evidenced by the fact that Call of Duty still sells in the millions. So they made an FPS to suit that crowd. They dumbed down the mechanics, they made the game linear and full of 'splosions and also added in a multiplayer mode worthy of the title "Call of Duty clone". Piracy had nothing to do with Crytek switching.

I understand why developers choose to switch to consoles. They have bills to pay and families to support and those developers realize mediocrity is frowned upon on the PC, mostly, they move to a platform that accepts it. I hold no grudge against Crytek or any other developer that choose to switch. What I hate about those developers is their smug attitude and the fact that they blame their shortcomings on piracy, every single time, instead of simply admitting the game sucked.

That's entirely possible, and I would say likely, but the fact remains that they claim to switch because of piracy. That may not be the case, I'm not in their meetings so I can't say. I will agree that piracy is used as a scapegoat for poor sales, and doing so is more than a bit ridiculous, but regardless, poor sales is poor sales and they need to pay the bills somehow.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not they actually do it for that reason; they've still switched. Most of the AAA developers are no longer willing to make games for PC. Why is, ultimately, irrelevant.

 

[The Abhorrent]

One thing which might be overlooked is hardware, which can curiously lean towards consoles. Because PCs are perpetually being updated with new hardware and drivers, getting a game to work on a PC might involve some manual updating on the part of the user. Needless to say, it can be a nuissance. There are some usual standards, but from time to time the occassional hiccup can prevent a PC player from doing that which wants to do most (play the game) for a while (usually no more than a day, but the point still stands). This is why many PC gamers are more technologically inclined, they have to be because it's effectively a requirement. Another thing to consider is that while everyone effectively has a PC... they all don't have a PC capable of playing games from the current generation. People can easily use PCs while are over a decade old and have very few issues doing the majority of the computer-related necessities (e-mail, documents, etc.), but those PCs aren't capable of handling games which push the limits of current technology. The key point isn't necessarily that people with older PCs are being cheap/lazy... it's just that they don't see the point of getting a better PC just so they can play new games on it. From that perspective, many game developpers are more inclined to make games for the consoles rather than PC, simply because the market which can play the games is the size of those with the console and not just the few who possess a top-end gaming PC.

With a console, there is only one piece of hardware the developpers have to concern themselves with - the console itself. As such, they're given the chance to get familar with it and work out all those various programming tweaks. On the side of the player, there's benefit of never having to worry about games for that console exceeding the system's capabilities. As such, games are expected to run smoothly and with minimal fuss or bugs. Either way, console games are usually the ones which run like greased lightning while PC games (barring someone using a top-of-the-line rig) can very easily be rather jittery and buggy. Another factor is accessibility; anyone can pick up a game for it's respective console, put it in, and start playing. PC games usually have to be installed, which may involve checking that your system requirements are up to snuff, and other time-consuming details before you can even start playing. With many PC games taking measures to prevent piracy (requiring being linked to an online network, DRM, and who knows what else), this can get more annoying. Consoles don't use this at all, it's just "plug & play"; even those with online capabilties still allow you to play offline with minimal fuss... and some of the more recent PC games (even if they are exclusively offline) can't be played without being online. While everyone has a PC... consoles certainly look more appealing for games, from both the perspective of the developper and the player (provided the latter isn't confining themselves to the PC).

Long story short, consoles have more certainty. A game can play on a console if it's released for it, but PC games typically require an above-average (if not exceptional) machine compared to the norm. If you do release a game which is playable by the vast majority of PCs, chances are it will at least look rather dated by current standards... and that's just not an issue which arises on consoles (or at least shouldn't be one). Combined with less risk of piracy (simply because modding consoles is rarer than PCs), and consoles being easier for the player to get into... well, it's where a good amount of the money is. As such, why bother making a port to the PC when it's almost certainly going to be a headache?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No pirates are not to blame lower profit margins are. People need to stop treating pirates as a lost sale as they aren't. They wouldn't of bought the game anyway. This does not make it right by any stretch of the imagination but people who pirate tend to be quite cheap/tight even though they bought a ?200+ system. Pirating is just as prevalent on consoles you just have less tangible figures to deal with.

Seriously people piracy is not the reason it is the excuse the reason is simple but unfortunate economics.

I don't know about the assertion that piracy is "just as prevalent on consoles". It's certainly not true worldwide, and I doubt it's even true in developed nations. Console piracy requires a good deal more technical expertise than PC piracy. This is, of course, except on the Wii, because Nintendo has no ability to punish pirates. "You'll ban me from online play? Oh no!" The only reason it's less ubiquitous is because most of the Wii's target demo isn't tech savvy enough to pull it off.

As for the claim that "They wouldn't of bought the game anyway" because they're "cheap/tight". That's debatable, but I think it's incorrect. If it was actually impossible to pirate I think some of these people would turn into sales. Some people do it because of frugality, but I think a lot of other people do it because of a combination of ease of commission and lack of morals. If it wasn't so easy, they might never have done it, in other words.

It doesn't require more technical expertise. In all cases of console piracy I know it requite none as every single case of someone pirating on consoles I know about they go to a shop get it chipped then BUY the pirated games from that shop/guy. That is how console pirating works. So a lot of those 1 downloads can easily turn into a reality of 100+ copies pirated. The only reason people think it is less as you never see the anywhere close to the true units for console piracy. I cannot say how mnay of those downloads do spawn spin off piracy but that they do and is something rarely considered by many people when talking about console piracy levels.

Now in PC piracy everyone I have ever known to do it actually did it themselves and found a torrent. Thus helping to create a lot more solid and accurate picture for PC piracy. Do you not remember when MS banned a million consoles off XBL? You are telling me console pircay is not as prevalent.

It is not a debateable point that they are cheap and woudln't of bought it anyway. Plenty of people are like this. What is debateable is the scale of how many are like this. Also do you even know how many some is? Is it 1% or 60%? You do not know no one can ever know. I can't say how many people do it due to being cheap but a lot do. Nor can say how many would be actual says either. Talking about pircay figures even the downloads is airy fairy guess work at best. Some people also use pirated copies as demos but how many? This is another thing to consider but just as hard to quantify.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

That's entirely possible, and I would say likely, but the fact remains that they claim to switch because of piracy. That may not be the case, I'm not in their meetings so I can't say. I will agree that piracy is used as a scapegoat for poor sales, and doing so is more than a bit ridiculous, but regardless, poor sales is poor sales and they need to pay the bills somehow.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not they actually do it for that reason; they've still switched. Most of the AAA developers are no longer willing to make games for PC. Why is, ultimately, irrelevant.

It is relevant because publishers and developers are lying and deceiving their customers. The thing is, even though these lies are so obvious gamers STILL fall for them. I'm angry at how greedy the world has become, even though our society is built on greed, but at the same time I'm angry at the fact that gamers actually fall for those lies. I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a gamer can trust companies like EA, Activision and Ubisoft when they're the sole reason we've got to put up with bullshit DRM and DLC schemes. Let's also not forget that these major publishers are the reason talent is wasted, games are rushed and sequels are plentiful. If publishers disappeared entirely we'd see more quality titles rather than the same game rehashed year after year with minor improvements sold at full price. Hell, 60 dollars is already an outrageous price for a game and publishers are pushing for a price raise for fucks sake.

The only innovative part of the gaming "industry" at the moment is the indie scene which thrives on originality and innovation and unfortunately the moment something that's even remotely exploitable comes out major publishers will do their best to buy that studio and milk their IP dry. The only exception to this rule that I've seen is Mojang's Minecraft which has unfortunately started to adopt a lot of the mechanics used by these major publishers to keep people hooked, mainly achievements. They've also announced that in the future, updates will stop being free of charge.

The current business model being used throughout the industry is what's bringing it down, not used game sales and piracy. Publishers are the sole reason the industry is in its current sorry state. If you've got a good game it will sell without the need of multi million dollar marketing campaigns, lies and loads of controversy

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

I 100% agree with this. The developer/publisher relationship is completely ridiculous and needs to be fixed.

With the relatively recent explosion of digital distribution, I can't see it lasting too much longer, but that may just be wishful thinking.

 

[Exterminas]

I would like you to provide further data on that trend you are speaking off. Two examples don't constitute a trend. I personally can't say that I am missing any PC-Ports.

Actually PC-Gaming has been booming over the last two years, lots of great PC-only games.

 

[barbzilla]

I personally don't mind paying for my games, but then again I work for a game company. The part that irritates me about games not making it to PC is that there are certain types of games I just prefer on PC. FPS games and RTS games. These two genres are my bread and butter. When a good platformer or action game comes out, I will buy it on a console and play the hell out of it (single player). All of my multiplayer is also done on PC. Perfect example I recently fell back in love with L4D2. I own it on the 360 and the steam version for PC. Console version only gets played when my buddies and I are drunk and want to play next to each other. The PC version gets played every day (for the most part, I do like to go out from time to time).

 

[velcrokidneyz]

no source but i thought i heard it was something along the lines of porting it to pc would be a huge effort due to something with their new graphical tech, the face thing, someone help me out here?

EDIT: for LA noir not RDR