What exactly is it about PC ports?!

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It is different enough to mean that our poor ass Witcher will not dare destroy his silver sword. Canon-wise, he does not have money for much. Even if Yen is actually helping him financially behind the scenes.
It will dull quicker or be destroyed against human opponents. And not be as effective overall. Why play with fire and die a stupid death and use a silver sword like an idiot ?
He can just a steel one by your logic. It KILLS MONSTERS just fine.

I am 100% certain that Skyrim sold the most on PC. At first? I dont know, maybe not. But by now that is the biggest version. There is a reason Bethesda bends over (despite being just a low-level of coding console-land company) to PC users.

The PS4 version looks better than my 2009 PC. Runs a bit worse though. The PS4 version loses out completely to my 2013 PC .

The people that are really interested in Witcher already bought it. PS3 and X360 are dead mate.
Yes. Bloodborne lost to a PC exclusive game made by 14 people ...

And I tell you that you game less actually. But that is your choice.

The silver sword is still basically a steel sword. Monsters are vulnerable to silver whereas humans are vulnerable to both.

You always say stuff without any facts to back you up whatsoever. If Skyrim was going to sell so much on PC, why was the interface all console-ified? Here's stats showing PS3 and 360 both (by themselves) easily outsold the PC version (and Steam was included):
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

So you bought a $600+ PC in 2009 and bought another PC in 2013 that was probably at least $500 I'm guessing at minimum. Unless you upgraded from that but it sounds like you have 2 PCs. How is that cheaper than buying consoles?

Pretty much all of 2014's games came out on PS3/360 still. 2015 is the year that they won't be getting much of the games anymore. Thus, the PS4/Xbone user-bases still have plenty of growth as lots of people haven't moved on since all the games were still coming out on PS3/360.

You make no sense and make constant contradictions. PC games keep selling and have legs; however, everyone interested in Witcher already bought it. That makes no sense. Plenty of people (both PC and console) wait for the GOTY/Ultimate editions of games. And, there's lots of console gamers still with PS3s/360s that will buy the Witcher when they get a PS4/Xbone.

Huh? What PC game did Bloodborne lose out to? Not that I care as I don't find the Souls games that good anyways.

And I tell you that I game more actually. I was playing Batman within 2 minutes of putting in the disc, I'm pretty sure most PC gamers spent time fiddling with graphical settings, looking for fixes on forums, etc. that I didn't do.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Nope. The Silver Sword simply wont do against humans is what I am saying. At least NOT ALL the time.
It will get dull, it is more expensive to maintain. It is not a good idea to use it against armored foes.

https://steamdb.info/app/72850/graphs/
15 % does not equal circa 9 million.

I have a good reason to need both. Whilst both were bought and constructed by me, the second one is "technically" not mine.

The people that buy games early or dont do used games are already mostly on the new consoles. The rest are not, yet.
In other words the CONSOLE gamers that would buy W3 on release mostly already have it.

Blooborne sold as much as Cities Skylines.

For Batman you may currently be right. Considering the difference in load times of other games, I would say that my 10 minute installs (negated if it happens when I am away) totally are compensated by the fact that games load in seconds.

Ok... But the damage a silver sword does against humans shouldn't be nearly as nerfed as it is in-game. The silver sword really isn't much different as it should just be a coating of silver over the steel as the sword would still be like 99% steel.

And, 9 million is still lower than 13.7 million (23,270,000 * 0.59) the 360 version sold... I thought you were CERTAIN the PC version sold more than any one console. Plus, SteamSpy even says the Skyrim data is not reliable due to Skyrim having a free weekend.

The Witcher 3 still has plenty of legs on console. Witcher as a game will have legs due to another Witcher being a ways off. Lots of console gamers do wait for the GOTY editions. You'll see on Amazon on Black Friday that Witcher 3 will sell out easily as lots also wait for price drops. I honestly don't see why people even buy used games as I can find a new copy cheaper than a used copy anyways. There's still plenty of console gamers that haven't bought a new console and will buy Witcher 3. I'm pretty sure you worded that wrong but of course, the people that would buy Witcher 3 on release already bought it, same thing for PC too. There's lots of people that don't buy games on release or why would stores keep those games in stock after the first week or month?

Your point of Bloodborne selling as much as Cities Skylines? The Souls games have never been big sellers.

Well, I have less than 2 minute installs as the game installs while I play. You can put a SSD in a PS4 if you want for faster load times, which is how the PC has faster load times (which means the expense of the PC going up at least another $50 as well). Even off a SSD, PC games don't load that fast. Divinity OS takes 20 seconds to load from SSD for me, that's about what Bloodborne takes on PS4 off the stock HD.

 

[asdfen]

I can build a PC that is able to display most games at less than 1080p (console resolution) a 20+ fps (console standard) which is around around 300-400 usd. It will be a pice of shit buget PC but I bet it will still out perform a console runing current multi platform games. I also dont live in the US so parts cost more here and no bargans. I dunno why would anyone do that thought as a bit more expensive good mid range PC is where value usually is and they kill all of the consoles not to mention you acually right away have access to a game library unlike ps4x1 which have 1 game each that I would even conider playing.

If anything PS3/x360 are good value for the money right now. However console games are usually at least 100% more expensive than PC titles. So if you are actually going to be playing a good ammount of games PC is cheaper and better.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I am under the impression that Skyrim sold circa 25 million copies
Steam does not release sale figures. This is an approximation. From someone. At least it wont be lower than that.

Ohh it has legs. Wait till RedKit comes out
I dont buy used. That does not exist here. I just wait for games to be on sale retail. Amazon ships overpriced here. Always.
Witcher 3 however was worth it me paying full price.

Bloodborne is a AAA game hyped as the great PS4 exclusive with a gigantic budget. Also from a MORE popular genre than Cities Skylines.
Cities Skylines is an indie game made on a small budget by few people from a near dead genre (due to the average gamer being... of questionable intellect IMHO).

I remember comparing PS4 load times of Metro to those on my PC. And those of the PS3 version to those of my old PC .
That was a funny comparison. More than HDD usage happens when you load a game mate

Skyrim sold most on 360 plain and simple even with your inflated PC numbers. You said you were certain Skyrim sold most on PC, proved wrong yet again.

From Software games don't have gigantic budgets. I already mentioned how city building games aren't nearly as niche as you say as SimCity has always sold well.

The HD is the bottle-neck of loading.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Then link to Xbox 360 sales...

Yes they do. Compared to Cities Skylines they do.
Compared to GTA or CoD? From is tiny. As are GTA and CoD compared to LoL and WoT...
Yes they are niche. As are strategy games. That is just the reality of it (as someone who loves these genres).

The very few ones that get released and are decent or even good get a decent amount of sales.

It is one of the possible (and usually biggest) bottlenecks. You ever loaded Metro LL on the PS3?

I already linked to Skyrim's game sales. 360 sold 59% of 23,270,000, which is more than 9 million inflated PC sales that did not all happen.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

GTA and CoD have bigger budgets than LoL and WoT. You jump around without making any sense. I assume you're saying LoL and WoT are bigger since they have more players. Well, mobile games have more players than LoL and WoT so it doesn't really matter how many play. All that matters with a game is that it makes a decent amount of profit, that's all. City building games sell over a million. Building games may be niche but city building is the most popular of the genre. The Souls games are niche in their genre as they only sell a fraction of say Skyrim. Souls games sell too much if you ask me, they aren't very good games.

I played a bit of Metro LL as it was free on PS+, I don't recall the loading times. Putting in a SSD on a console lowers the loading times a decent amount, much like PC. Seeking and reading data on the HD is by far the element that causes most of the loading time (everything else is much faster).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

"Within two days of the game's launch, 3.4 million physical copies were sold. Of those sales, 59% were for the Xbox 360, 27% for the PS3, and 14% for the PC."

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/11/skyrim-sales-estimated-at-3-4-million-in-two-days/

So yeah

LoL and WoT are simply more popular games with massive budgets (being F2P and developed ALL the time means its budget does not work like the on on a game that just releases you know...). Yet are also clearly "fit" of what some people consider to be "good games".
Both can be very competitive and much more "hardcore" than any CoD or GTA game. Or as casual as any one of these games. A blessing and a curse.
Most mobile games, of the popular kind (and I am not dissing their value as a fun game) are just not built like that. They are "casual" (whatever that word means today).

Lets put it like this. City Builders are the biggest fishes in a small, niche genre that is near dead. Souls games are mid-tier in a fairly popular genre. And had the marketing and PS fanboys all over it ...

HDD is part of the equation mate. I can assure you that your PS3 loaded slower than a PC with a comparable HD tech.

VGchartz is not source listed on my link if that's what you were getting at. You've yet to prove Skyrim sold most on PC, even your source has compromised data. Fact is multiplatform titles sell most on a SINGLE CONSOLE the vast majority of the time. Why would Bethesda make Skyrim's interface tailored to consoles if the PC was going to sell the most?

I don't know why you're so into Cities Skylines outselling or selling close to Bloodborne, I'm not surprised by that. It doesn't make much difference into the discussion anyways. I'm not saying a PC game inherently sells less than console games so why develop for PC or anything like that. You can develop a PC-only game and have it sell well, I've never said you couldn't. However, a multiplatform title will most likely sell more on a single console so that's why the console version is prioritized vs PC getting shitty ports quite often.

Loading isn't the reason why I game more on console than PC. I spend no time fixing issues or looking for fixes on the console. That's where all the saved time comes in. Even with mods, you have issues of certain mods not working well together and you have to figure that out as well.

 

[Weaver]

I imagine there can also be a lot of issues with trying to slam in a DRM system into a code-base your company did not create and is not familiar with.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I just gave your source's source ...
That is what you quoted... I gave you the origin of that quote... Look at the statistics. And at the source I gave you. Again

Bethesda are mediocre coders at heart. Because they can get away with it on PC and not on consoles. That is the reason IMHO.

Because I AM surprised that the "pride and joy" of the PS4, the ohh so hardcore action RPG with a fairly large budget and backed up by Sony got beaten by an indie game . It is nice to see the underdog come out you know.
Bloodborne is just a PS4 game (also, mortal).

I know it is not the reason. There is a reason why poor Eastern Europe is PC Gaming land though...
I havent had to fix a PC game in a looong time...

My source's sources were Bethesda Game Studios, Steam, Zenimax. You still have no source showing Skyrim sold most on PC. Your source is probably more compromised than VGchartz anyways as SteamSpy counted the free Skyrim copies too.

The Souls games have never sold like hotcakes. Bloodborne performed basically of what's expected from a Souls game.

Console gaming is more expensive where you are vs it being cheaper here.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Then where are your sources ?
Because it is NOT that link you sent me...

Bloodborn sold reasonably well. But it is just a AAA game compared to an indie game... that is the point.

Id say it is due to people being more used to being poor (have been for at least 60 years, since 1944) and planning ahead better than people from where you are (where on average you simply ARE much richer)

On the top of the page [http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/], it says the sources are Bethesda Game Studios, Steam, Zenimax. You don't have a single source saying PC Skyrim outsold 360 Skyrim.

You can have whatever point you want to have with Bloodborne and Cities Skylines. I have no idea how whatever point you're trying to make has any bearing on why PC gets bad ports.

Most of us aren't that rich here. If you can afford a good PC and PC games, you're probably not that much poorer.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This is the source for those statistics mate:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/11/skyrim-sales-estimated-at-3-4-million-in-two-days/

Read it and read the link you sent me again. The ratios are the same...
So in other words I gave you the source for your source

I actually dont believe PC gets many bad ports. The few ones it does get have a shitstorm (as they should). Shows some backbone.
It is a comparison of a Indie PC exclusive to a AAA Console one.

The average where you live is much MUCH MUCH richer than the average here. In comparison, you ARE richer.
You have no choice. You need a PC. Might as well get a good one. Not waste money on what is essentially a limited PC.

My source has 23 million Skyrim copies sold vs your source of 3.4 million. I'm not what source Bethesda uses as Besthesda is the source of the statistics. Where's your source showing Skyrim sold more on PC, which you were so very CERTAIN of?

I've said before a vast majority of PC games work just fine, I'm sure there's always a few people (hardware/software configurations) that have issues with probably any PC game.

Your comparison of a AAA game vs an indie game proves what? I can't see a single reason that would have any bearing on this discussion.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Your source claims a total of 23 million Skyrim copies sold.
The source for the percentage is from THAT SITE I GAVE YOU. It is the best they have and is about Skyrim's sales in 2 days.
I thought it is obvioust....

Good. And you are one of those few people that always have problems?

Ohh nothing. It is just a fun comparison.

I noticed that at your first post of your link. That's why I said exactly, "VGchartz is not source listed on my link if that's what you were getting at." And VGChartz is not that bad with sales figures (especially for console numbers) and they even adjust their numbers based on other more solid data that comes out. There is still no way the numbers are that off to where the PC version outsold the 360 version. Even your inflated and unreliable SteamSpy numbers don't have the PC version close to outselling 360.

Where's your source for the PC selling more? You were so CERTAIN of that yet have no proof whatsoever for that.