seless fact: At one point Counter Strike accounted for more internet traffic than Italy.corroded said:
All of Italy, in case anyone asks the source it's the book 'Half Life 2: Raising the bar'.
PC Gamers can seperate the wheat from the chaff.
- Thread starter out0v0rder
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All of Italy, in case anyone asks the source it's the book 'Half Life 2: Raising the bar'.
I'm a hardcore PC and console gamer, and I don't really feel the need to either pick a side or talk about the differences between the two. I do, however, feel the need to point at one giant difference between PC gaming and console gaming.
PC gamers can no longer trade in their games.
There's your biggest reason why PC gamers are more picky. If you were stuck with whatever you bought, you'd be picky too. While there's not as many games coming out just for the PC anymore, I can guarantee you there's some that consoles wish they had. Mafia 2's coming out for everything, but the first came out for PC and was ported years later. Dragon Age: Origins is Bioware's next gem for the PC only. The Witcher did so well for the PC that CDProjekt is developing a Witcher game for consoles now.
As for the games mentioned that show how PC gamers aren't picky, it depends on the system. Sure, there's lot of PC gamers playing The Sims and WoW. The premise for the high sales is that those games can work on very low end PCs... those PC gamers can't be picky; they take what they can get. As for Spore... sure it sold well initially; it's also one of the most pirated game ever. So I think you have a trade-off there between the demographic that bought the game, and the hacker elite of PC gamers that yanked it off the internet rather than paying money for shit.
Crysis sold well enough, but I'd bet you real money that Crysis was bought more to mod and level map with than anything else. It was probably the best looking level creation system made, so those with a creative edge ate it up.
PC gamers can no longer trade in their games.
There's your biggest reason why PC gamers are more picky. If you were stuck with whatever you bought, you'd be picky too. While there's not as many games coming out just for the PC anymore, I can guarantee you there's some that consoles wish they had. Mafia 2's coming out for everything, but the first came out for PC and was ported years later. Dragon Age: Origins is Bioware's next gem for the PC only. The Witcher did so well for the PC that CDProjekt is developing a Witcher game for consoles now.
As for the games mentioned that show how PC gamers aren't picky, it depends on the system. Sure, there's lot of PC gamers playing The Sims and WoW. The premise for the high sales is that those games can work on very low end PCs... those PC gamers can't be picky; they take what they can get. As for Spore... sure it sold well initially; it's also one of the most pirated game ever. So I think you have a trade-off there between the demographic that bought the game, and the hacker elite of PC gamers that yanked it off the internet rather than paying money for shit.
Crysis sold well enough, but I'd bet you real money that Crysis was bought more to mod and level map with than anything else. It was probably the best looking level creation system made, so those with a creative edge ate it up.
Ohh I agree with you. But you see, those aren't indicative of the PC gaming standard. Look at how well some of the other PC games that came out around the same time of CoD4 have fared. The UT3s and the afore-mentioned Crysiseseses. WoW is raking in the cash, and The Sims is one of the top selling games of all time. But if you make a standard game (Farcry, Fallout, GTA, Oblivion, etc) and release it to both console and PC, it is a dead cert to sell considerably more on the console.corroded said:
PC games are drying up, for the most part. Even The Witcher is moving over to console now. The reason isn't that PCs are naturally worse, the reason is that he PC gaming industry has actually institutionalized low quality as part of its business model. People don't just accept it when a PC game is crippled, they expect it. Most gamers just can't be arsed with the aggravation and are turning to consoles instead.
Flexibility is something that consoles lack. Backwards computability issues, region locking are among some of the annoying aspects of console gaming. You're also forgetting that while PC gamers have to go through troubleshooting often, the end product is capable of producing a better visual experience. Sometimes, even a better a gaming experience.Eclectic Dreck said:
Sorry maybe I am missing the point here what exactly does naming two decent games prove? That the PC has good games? I am pretty sure I wasn't debating weather the PC had decent games or not because shockingly enough I know it does. The debate is this idea that PC gamers are a cut above console gamers because they won't buy crap games, which is plain and simple WRONG, hence why I chose three titles which have all done very well but are flawed.
Mate, you haven't even come close to having half an idea as to what my 'position' is.
Okay that was a flawed simile on my part. What's the modern equivalent to big blue then? I dunno I'll maybe go google it later on.
Maybe so but the point of Crysis use was not to point out how much of a resource hog it is but rather that the majority reason most people bought it was not because it was a fabulous example of gaming greatness but because your average PC gamer is just as much a simple graphics whore as their console gaming brethen. Doesn't really seem like a reason to buy a game especially given that PC gamers are meant to be above all that.
Finally
I am sorry it is a very bad game and that's not just biased opinion, that seems to be the consensus especially as Spore is mentioned a good few times in the most disappointing game of 2008 post.
Yes but the fact is that while it is not part of the game it is still part of the experience and given how intrusive it is attached to a pretty poor game combined with the fact that the game sold and is still selling so well it does kind of reinforce the point that PC gamers will buy any old rubbish no matter how many hoops you make them jump through to play it. Not exactly the qualities of the discerning gamer being portrayed by the article now is it?
Missed the point which was that Crysis sold more on the backing of the graphics than the fact that it was truly original or a great game. Again showing that the descerning PC gamer is just as easily swayed by shiny shiny graphics as their simple minded console brethen.
PC gamers are more discerning in their choice of gaming titles yet the most popular title on the systems is a game aimed purely at the casual gamer market! Really that kind of paradox has to tear some sort of hole in space and time if it were true. Chances are it just proves that the average PC gamer is just as willing to buy rubbish as your average console gamer is.
I think the choice of popular gaming titles shows that pc gaming can be BOTH more diverse and mainstream than any other platform. Theres really no other system where the sims and call of duty top the charts at the same time on the same platform.Laughing Man said:
While we are talking about the sims, if you notice the PC versions of the sims have high ratings across the board, definately not "rubbish". 50 Cent bulletproof on the other hand.........
Yeah 50 cent bulletproof has been overused in arguments, oh well. Anyways I think gamasutra is an awesome website.
Yes, many more crap games sell on consoles, just because of advertising, marketing, hype, and fanboy commitment.
It's kind of sad when you look at the sales of Valkyria Chronicles and then look at MGS:4, or when you look at Psychonauts and then look at Halo 3.
On PC, many people get demos, steal the full game, watch gameplay videos, know exactly what they're getting before they get it, because PC gaming is more retard-proof. You (nowadays) actually have to know a slight bit about your PC before just going out and buying a game to play. Consoles, everything works on everything, so if it looks ok, you just buy it and try it.
PC, with all the compatibility issues and all the hardware demands, if you don't really know much about it, you probably won't be buying new games. If you have hardware that can run new games, you are probably the type of dedicated person who wants to play what they found to be awesome a year ago when it was announced and you've been following the development plan ever since.
I'm not saying every PC gamer is a smarter buyer than every console gamer, or every PC gamer is a "HARDKORRRE" player (loloverusedterm), because there is a big market for casual games and for MMOs (or casual MMOs, how about that?) which is being tapped into currently (see peggle, WoW)
Trust me, I find a lot of retards who play my beloved games, and it saddens me to no end, but I think about how many more retards play console equivalents and I feel a little better.
Overall, we can separate the wheat from the chaff.
P.S. : Yes, I paid for the sims livin' large expansion pack when I was 12, because I actually did enjoy it at the time. (installed the original game from a friend to try it first)
It's kind of sad when you look at the sales of Valkyria Chronicles and then look at MGS:4, or when you look at Psychonauts and then look at Halo 3.
On PC, many people get demos, steal the full game, watch gameplay videos, know exactly what they're getting before they get it, because PC gaming is more retard-proof. You (nowadays) actually have to know a slight bit about your PC before just going out and buying a game to play. Consoles, everything works on everything, so if it looks ok, you just buy it and try it.
PC, with all the compatibility issues and all the hardware demands, if you don't really know much about it, you probably won't be buying new games. If you have hardware that can run new games, you are probably the type of dedicated person who wants to play what they found to be awesome a year ago when it was announced and you've been following the development plan ever since.
I'm not saying every PC gamer is a smarter buyer than every console gamer, or every PC gamer is a "HARDKORRRE" player (loloverusedterm), because there is a big market for casual games and for MMOs (or casual MMOs, how about that?) which is being tapped into currently (see peggle, WoW)
Trust me, I find a lot of retards who play my beloved games, and it saddens me to no end, but I think about how many more retards play console equivalents and I feel a little better.
Overall, we can separate the wheat from the chaff.
P.S. : Yes, I paid for the sims livin' large expansion pack when I was 12, because I actually did enjoy it at the time. (installed the original game from a friend to try it first)
Think of it in terms of raw numbers. The console players, taken as a group, seem to far outnumber the PC gamers. If 2.5% of the console market buys SpaceFucker 3D [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/6/8/], the game might make a decent profit. If 2.5% of PC gamers buy it, it's probably a flop unless it was ridiculously low budget.
(Yay for Steam and its cousins for helping to turn this around, by the way.)
It doesn't help that PCs are expensive platforms these days, thanks in part to the console advantage of being sold below cost and recouping the loss on game sales.
(Yay for Steam and its cousins for helping to turn this around, by the way.)
It doesn't help that PCs are expensive platforms these days, thanks in part to the console advantage of being sold below cost and recouping the loss on game sales.
Ha ha. The Sims is not a flawed game; it's merely different. How can you not get your head wrapped around the fact that this game is tailored to a different subset of the PC genre, is widely regarded as innovative, engrossing, and generally harmless, and sells fucking GOBS of copies.Laughing Man said:
That's a success, and yet, you call it a failure. Sounds like you've already made up your mind.
Yes, we can separate the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately for your point, what you deem as chaff is overwhelmingly seen as "not so".
Most of the time, when something on a PC gets patched, it's because people have different PCs with different hardware and different drivers, but the game is all the same. If you're making an XBox game, you know everyone has the same XBox (well there are Arcade/Pro/Elite versions but they all play the same games) so you know exactly what to shoot for. PC game developers get a bit of a rough job because they have to make sure their games work perfectly (or close to it) on just about every recently built machine imaginable.
Secondly, PCs have generally been connected to the internet for awhile now, whereas this is relatively new for consoles, so it's perfectly reasonable for developers to come up with new content (or bug-fixes) in a patch and release them (and unlike the xbox 360, they don't make you pay most of the time). Seriously, when are patches ever a bad thing? Many game developers would probably love to spend a bit more time working on their beautiful projects, but you've got to keep in mind they're running on a budget and they've got release dates breathing down their necks (unless you work at Valve). It looks very good on paper if you release a working game relatively early (or at least on time) and then have a huge mass of people as "beta testers" and patch up all the problems later, maybe even adding cool new content along the way. What doesn't look good is when you've spent years upon years upon years developing a game, making sure it worked on every type of PC imaginable, had a team of a million chimps looking for bugs, releasing it, and finding out that nobody gives a shit.
Secondly, PCs have generally been connected to the internet for awhile now, whereas this is relatively new for consoles, so it's perfectly reasonable for developers to come up with new content (or bug-fixes) in a patch and release them (and unlike the xbox 360, they don't make you pay most of the time). Seriously, when are patches ever a bad thing? Many game developers would probably love to spend a bit more time working on their beautiful projects, but you've got to keep in mind they're running on a budget and they've got release dates breathing down their necks (unless you work at Valve). It looks very good on paper if you release a working game relatively early (or at least on time) and then have a huge mass of people as "beta testers" and patch up all the problems later, maybe even adding cool new content along the way. What doesn't look good is when you've spent years upon years upon years developing a game, making sure it worked on every type of PC imaginable, had a team of a million chimps looking for bugs, releasing it, and finding out that nobody gives a shit.
Oops, sorry, missed that bit. That and the year changing, always knackers my mental clock. >_< Have to make sure I sign things 2009.