Why is PC gaming "dead"?

[AzrealMaximillion]

If those aren't qualifiers for why the PC market is not as attractive for gamers as console gaming.

Sorry, I must have fallen asleep as you repeated the same stuff again. Did I miss the part where you explain how the section of the gaming community that games on PCs exists if your original statement is true?

Those aren't qualifiers, btw, they're supporting points.

And what in the hell is the difference? I'm pretty sure a supporting point can be used to show a qualification.

Here is the dictionaty definition of qualifier:

1. A contestant who qualifies for a stage in a competition.
2. A preliminary stage of a competition.
3. A person who qualifies for something.
4. (grammar) A word or phrase, such as an adjective or adverb, that describes or characterizes another word or phrase, such as a noun or verb; a modifier; that adds or subtracts attributes to another.

Which one of those definitions of "qualifier" are you looking for?

 

[x0ny]

If PC gaming is dying, it's because of piracy. They won't be releasing Crysis 2 on PC, same reason the didn't bother with a Gears of War 2 PC release. But to me, I play all my FPS games on PC, World of Warcraft, pretty much any non xbox/ps3/wii exclusive on PC, for better graphics.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It's not dead, but it is smaller than console gaming.

No it's not.
It's bigger than all the consoles put together.

In which way specifically? Cause it's sure as shit not in software sales.

That and the PC just doesn't have as large a range of genres as consoles do.

There are more major and renowned developers for consoles so that's were the investments are.

The PC just hasn't had the amount of classics it did in the 90s.

Now it's crappy console ports, zombies, zombies, zombies, uninspired FPSs and RTSs.

no genres?

*points to the steam store genre selector*

no companies?

*points to the entire developer selector for steam*

No money in sales?

*points to the money made by steam every single year*

want me to go on? because i can do this all day.

You didn't prove how those lead to PC leading in any fashion.

Steam Genre Selector: Most of the games on steam that are not RTSs, Valve, or uninspired FPSs sell better on console.

Steam Developer Selector doesn't prove anything. Thete are still more major developers on the consoles than there are that work with Steam. That is a fact. There are lots of developrs that aren't on Steam pal.

And never did I say no money in sales. I'm pretty sure that Black Ops can prove that alone. I highly doubt Steam makes as much money as company like EA, Activision or Square Enix based just off of Steam alone. My point was that consoles in general make more money for devs and publishers than PC. That's also a fact.

Basing your entire arguement off of Steam was stupid. I'm talking ALL PC and ALL console. Steam is just one aspect of the PC. And if your going to say things like, "points to money made by Steam", put up a link to help your point out.

Last time I check Valve was making $70 million.

Last time I checked the Activision part of Activision Blizzard was raking in 2.9 billion a year. Which is my point. PC isn`t dead but it sure as shit doesn`t make money like major console companies do.

so you're basing the sales on ONE MULTIPLATFORM GAME? and never did i say its ALL steam. List the developers if you want but the fact of the matter is that most developers are mulitplatform. Sell better on console? Where are you basing your facts since digital distribution don't divulge their numbers.

For your information you are trying to compare A DIGITAL STORE TO GAME PUBLISHERS. STEAM IS NOT A PUBLISHER, ITS A STORE. Why not compare Target to mcdonalds while you're at it? Console developers? That implies the console exclusive companies which limits the companies to console exclusive developers which are quite small. If you notice console developers are big because consoles are expensive to develop for and high risk while the PC is low risk and cheap to develop for. Your gaggle of "big dogs" can't stand a fucking chance against the thousands of developing studios on PC. Need i pull out the game numbers of PC games versus console games?

I never based my arguement off of one multiplatform game. I based off of a company. I didn't mention a game. Nice try at word twisting. You essentially used Steam for all of your points so I pointed out that one company makes a massive amount more than Valve which deals mostly with PC. You really need to learn how to argue. And in terms of the big dogs not standing a chance against the thousands of developing PC studios, that statement is just asinine. You want to pull numbers out to prove me wrong? Allow me.

Out of the top 10 best selling video game franchises only one of them is exlusivlely PC. The Sims. The rest are console exclusive or games that were released on all platforms but sold more on consoles due to PCs always getting shafted on release dates.

Black Ops alone, which is the most Pirated PC game of this year, still made $1 billion dollars faster than Avatar, the top best selling movie of all time.

Yes there are thousands of developing PC studios. Likewise for console based studios. There are probably more developing console developers than on PC. Please name these thousands of PC studios. Then name what they've done. The develoing console studios grow faster then the developing PC studios. This can be show with Blow Entertainment, The Behemoth, and many companies that have released indie successes on XBL/PSN. I personally haven't heard of many developing PC studios but apparently you claim there are Thousands.

I never said PC was dead.

But comparing it's growth to the console industry is just silly.

Indie releases on XBL/PSN isn't what a console developer makes. An indie release for XBL/PSN is practically the same as an Iphone game. The PC however supports much more indie studios due to the lack of fees that are required to develop for the console. This is why only big companies can be true console developers. The cost to make is so big, and the chance to get the money back is too small. "there are probably more console developers" isn't going to cut it. Want numbers? Okay here's the numbers.

Decent (non shovel ware, 70% score) games by Platform:
PC: 1275
XBOX 360: 479
PS3: 341
WII: 242

If consoles have more developers, you would think they would have more games than the PC. However, this is a far cry from the old generation. Also i should note that this graph only shows games with 5 reviews or more and does not include free games like Dwarf fortress, or survival crisis Z.

PS2: 792
Xbox: 472
Gamecube: 263

If you notice the total number of general console games DROPPED since the last generation. PC may have been hurting last generation but this generation it has jumped back in a big way.

You calling a console indie game the same as an iPhone game really makes not take you seriously anymore. Braid, Castle Crashers, Trine, Costume Quest, and Joe Danger are not comparable to iPhone games.

And where the hell are you getting your numbers from? If you can't post up a link then these numbers are bullshit. And how the hell did you find numbers for "non shovelware" games? Prove that please. That and you cutting out shovelware really skews the numbers, sorry to say.

If consoles have more developers, you would think they would have more games than the PC.

If the PC has more developers than how come there are more big name titles on the console? And just because there's more doesn't mean they have a large library of games.

This is why only big companies can be true console developers. The cost to make is so big, and the chance to get the money back is too small

You know it's just as expensive to create a major PC game as it is to make a major console game right?

Now back to your ghost numbers.

You say there are:
345 PS3 games when there are 647.
479 Xbox 360 games when there are 747.
242 Wii games when there are 962.
792 PS2 games when there are 2015.
472 Xbox games when there are 966.
263 GC games when there are 640.
(All numbers found simply by typing in "X" games in wikipedia and google.)
You can't tell which companies are making the most shovelware by cutting out the numbers of shovelware. And the amount of games doesn't show if each game was sucessful.

The PC market isn't as big as the console market. Get it through your head.

Metacritic game archives. The minimum score is 70% AKA a decent game. If i included all the bad games the wii would take the cake out of all of them merely with shovel ware alone. That's why i cut it to only show the games that are of decent quality. Its really is no secret that some studios put out games like gingerbread ninja and big rigs to con people out of money. This is the curse of the game industry as people are bound to imitate anything in a half ass fashion.

PC gaming is cheaper to make a game for, as it requires no notification of a major company and requires no licensing fees. Everyone knows that console games take the cake in budget. Big name titles on console? You do realize its MULTI-PLATFORM RIGHT? Just because the big name titles are more aligned with console doesn't mean all the developers are there. IF you really notice, only a few people can afford to make games for the console anymore, and if it isnt AAA, then you shouldn't even bother because there will be no way to make your money BACK. Everything is multi-platform now. If you want to argue exclusives, then i know a site you can go to with a list of exclusives.

http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/

Not bigger than console gaming? let me put all of this in perspective:

Console:
-Requires extortionate fees to develop every game for.
-High risk of failure.
-High cost to develop the games.
-Few genres are profitable.
-Retail can work against your product in favor of a big franchise.
-Used game sales bleeding money from market.
-Highly profitable genres already saturated. It will be hard to get into the profitable genres.

PC:
-Development cheaper.
-More genres profitable.
-Steam allows easy access to gaming public.
-Doesn't need to follow set standards for technical or graphical quality (see mount and blade, minecraft, Dwarf Fortress).
-more accessible.

You know something else that was more accessible? The PS2. That console had the most games ever because it was open to developers without fees or troubles. Now, the PC follows that same path so you do the math and get that through your head.

"big success from BIG COMPANIES AND FROM WELL KNOWN TITLES PREDATING THIS GENERATION" doesn't mean shit to developers in how they choose their platform, its how easy it is to get into.

If you really do some research, PC gaming growing faster than a fat guy at a buffet full of cheeseburgers if all the news stories are to be believed.

Braid and Trine are on PC which means they are NOT console games. they are MULTI-PLATFORM. Just because a game is released on console and PC doesn't automatically make it a console game.

You know you'd have a point from this site:
http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/

if a lot of those games have been released on the PSN/XBL as well as on the consoles themselves.

Also using a critic based analysis to prove your point is a bit silly. There's no way to tell how many games that got a %70 or abouve actually suceeded.

All I'm saying is the PC isn't as big or as marketable as the console industry. I never said that PC was dead, or even failing. ALl you've done is try to make PC look like it's the biggest money making in the video game business. I never denied that PC makes money, it's just not making as much as console. Stop being thick. I never mention the failure of PC. This is what I get for saying that PC isn't as great as console. I get attacked by you. Just like on the "Iron Sights" thread. Sorry but your not convincing me that PC makes more money then console. It may be cheaper to make games for but how many of those games show signifacant growth in the PC market?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Now for the lack of renknown companies.
Ensemble Studios getting shut down is really a sign of the times. As good of a company as it was, they made and RTS every 2-3 years. That doesn't show longevity. Especially in a market where RTSs are pumped out so vehemously.

PC exclusive reknown companies are really dwindling. The only ones I can name are CD Projeckt and Blizzard Entertainment. With the loss of Black Isle, Bullfrog Productions, and a lot more PC developers that made classic after classic after classic gets shut down, it's really a sign of the markets shifting.

Objection: all those has one thing in common; the parent company decided too close down the subsidiarity. Black Isle, admittedly, went down due to some Interplay brouhaha, but Bullfrog and Ensemble both got shut down by their owners.

And neither Bullfrog nor Ensemble was PC exclusive companies.

Ultimately, companies getting shut down does not mean you can make grand statements about the state of a specific section of the market (see also: Pandemic, Clover Studios).

Yeah, it kind of does. Underperforming companies get shut down. A lot more of that happens in the PC world. Also Bullfrog and Ensemble made very little console games.

Proof? Where is it? You can't just say that "it happens more in the PC world". If you actually notice, game companies die of outside influences more than anything. Bullfrog died because EA wanted to shut it down, and Black isle shut down because herve caen made a BAD CONSOLE GAME WHICH SAPPED THEIR INCOME ENTIRELY. If consoles are so profitable, then Black isle would still be around today.

Um no. Your info on Black Isle is wrong. Just like you've been the entire time. Black Isle had nothing to do with Fallout BoS. That was Interplay. Herve Caen was an Interplay employee not a Black Isle employee. Fallout BoS was developed entirely by Interplay, not Black Isle. Black Isle was shut down a year before Fallout BoS came out. Nice try but you failed once again. And the all caps aren't making your points stronger. They're just highlighting which of your asinine arguement I should disprove.

Fallout BoS was (unfortunately) sucessful enough for a sequel, so even if it was under Black Isle then it wouldn't have sapped the company's income as you said.

And as for Bullfrog. EA didn't just want the studio so shut down. It was obviously not performing well enough to justify it's aquisition. As soon as Peter Molyneux left that was the last nail in the coffin for Bullfrog.

Listen, stop this nonsense. You're not going to prove that PC is bigger than console by using useless numbers and uninformed statements about companies.

 

[Hiphophippo]

PC Gaming will always be where true innovation happens.

1000x this. i have consoles but only really for exclusives. pc gaming is where the magic happens.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If those aren't qualifiers for why the PC market is not as attractive for gamers as console gaming.

Sorry, I must have fallen asleep as you repeated the same stuff again. Did I miss the part where you explain how the section of the gaming community that games on PCs exists if your original statement is true?

Those aren't qualifiers, btw, they're supporting points.

And what in the hell is the difference? I'm pretty sure a supporting point can be used to show a qualification.

Here is the dictionaty definition of qualifier:

1. A contestant who qualifies for a stage in a competition.
2. A preliminary stage of a competition.
3. A person who qualifies for something.
4. (grammar) A word or phrase, such as an adjective or adverb, that describes or characterizes another word or phrase, such as a noun or verb; a modifier; that adds or subtracts attributes to another.

Which one of those definitions of "qualifier" are you looking for?

*sighs* well, seeing as this isn't a competition and there isn't a person trying to qualify for something here, I'll leave you to work it out.

After you've done that maybe you can get around to explaining how the section of the gaming community that games on PCs exists if your original statement is true.

The relative sizes of PC gaming and console gaming doesn't make a bit of difference to your statement and while it's been fun to watch you run around trying to prove an irrelevant point, I've grown bored of it.

Here's a hint, if you say 'gamers' without any qualifiers or explicitly naming exceptions that means ALL gamers. Now, put that into the context of your original statement of 'PC gaming is not the attractive option for gamers'. The simple existance of gamers for whom PC gaming IS the attractive option shows your statement to be false. Feel free to try and reconcile your original statement with the existance of PC gamers without changing the wording or trying to redefine the words (ie, "When I said 'gamers' I meant console gamers.")

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If those aren't qualifiers for why the PC market is not as attractive for gamers as console gaming.

Sorry, I must have fallen asleep as you repeated the same stuff again. Did I miss the part where you explain how the section of the gaming community that games on PCs exists if your original statement is true?

Those aren't qualifiers, btw, they're supporting points.

And what in the hell is the difference? I'm pretty sure a supporting point can be used to show a qualification.

Here is the dictionaty definition of qualifier:

1. A contestant who qualifies for a stage in a competition.
2. A preliminary stage of a competition.
3. A person who qualifies for something.
4. (grammar) A word or phrase, such as an adjective or adverb, that describes or characterizes another word or phrase, such as a noun or verb; a modifier; that adds or subtracts attributes to another.

Which one of those definitions of "qualifier" are you looking for?

*sighs* well, seeing as this isn't a competition and there isn't a person trying to qualify for something here, I'll leave you to work it out.

After you've done that maybe you can get around to explaining how the section of the gaming community that games on PCs exists if your original statement is true.

The relative sizes of PC gaming and console gaming doesn't make a bit of difference to your statement and while it's been fun to watch you run around trying to prove an irrelevant point, I've grown bored of it.

Here's a hint, if you say 'gamers' without any qualifiers or explicitly naming exceptions that means ALL gamers. Now, put that into the context of your original statement of 'PC gaming is not the attractive option for gamers'. The simple existance of gamers for whom PC gaming IS the attractive option shows your statement to be false. Feel free to try and reconcile your original statement with the existance of PC gamers without changing the wording or trying to redefine the words (ie, "When I said 'gamers' I meant console gamers.")

Seems to me you just don't have a point to prove. When I say gamers I mean anyone that games. Anyone who is interested in the pixelated world. Anyone who plays video games. Now in the gaming market the PC is not as attractive as the console. Costs of continuous upgrades, lack of must have titles, having to search to find a unique gaming experience. Those are points that have been demonstrated time and time again. You really had no value or point in this arguement so I'll end it here. If you have no intrest in showing a point then why even argue?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Now for the lack of renknown companies.
Ensemble Studios getting shut down is really a sign of the times. As good of a company as it was, they made and RTS every 2-3 years. That doesn't show longevity. Especially in a market where RTSs are pumped out so vehemously.

PC exclusive reknown companies are really dwindling. The only ones I can name are CD Projeckt and Blizzard Entertainment. With the loss of Black Isle, Bullfrog Productions, and a lot more PC developers that made classic after classic after classic gets shut down, it's really a sign of the markets shifting.

Objection: all those has one thing in common; the parent company decided too close down the subsidiarity. Black Isle, admittedly, went down due to some Interplay brouhaha, but Bullfrog and Ensemble both got shut down by their owners.

And neither Bullfrog nor Ensemble was PC exclusive companies.

Ultimately, companies getting shut down does not mean you can make grand statements about the state of a specific section of the market (see also: Pandemic, Clover Studios).

Yeah, it kind of does. Underperforming companies get shut down. A lot more of that happens in the PC world. Also Bullfrog and Ensemble made very little console games.

Proof? Where is it? You can't just say that "it happens more in the PC world". If you actually notice, game companies die of outside influences more than anything. Bullfrog died because EA wanted to shut it down, and Black isle shut down because herve caen made a BAD CONSOLE GAME WHICH SAPPED THEIR INCOME ENTIRELY. If consoles are so profitable, then Black isle would still be around today.

Um no. Your info on Black Isle is wrong. Just like you've been the entire time. Black Isle had nothing to do with Fallout BoS. That was Interplay. Herve Caen was an Interplay employee not a Black Isle employee. Fallout BoS was developed entirely by Interplay, not Black Isle. Black Isle was shut down a year before Fallout BoS came out. Nice try but you failed once again. And the all caps aren't making your points stronger. They're just highlighting which of your asinine arguement I should disprove.

Fallout BoS was (unfortunately) sucessful enough for a sequel, so even if it was under Black Isle then it wouldn't have sapped the company's income as you said.

And as for Bullfrog. EA didn't just want the studio so shut down. It was obviously not performing well enough to justify it's aquisition. As soon as Peter Molyneux left that was the last nail in the coffin for Bullfrog.

Listen, stop this nonsense. You're not going to prove that PC is bigger than console by using useless numbers and uninformed statements about companies.

misinformed position? Practice what you preach dude. What do you think i was saying? If herve caen didn't enter the console market black isle wouldn't have been disbanded. They didn't have the money to make fallout 3 anymore. BOS was not successful, it bankrupted the damn company and killed any hope of it coming back.

If the market was better for PC then Black Isle wouldn't have had to have it's funds taken. All of Black Isle's games have received critical acclaim. In a good market there is no reason for a company with that kind of rep to just shut down. Especially not because of one guy taking one games' funding. Black Isle was a small studio in the time where Blizzard, Valve and Epic Games ran the PC market. Had Diablo II never existed Fallout 2 probablt would have been a massive success. Unfortunately that was not the case.

 

[Redworld13]

Someone get the picture!

Yessir!

HAHAHHAHA You Sir are awesome!!!
Im primarily a PC gamer and there's no better place for strategy games and fps(in my opinion)
Oh and PC gaming will never die, look at WOW and Starcraft

 

[likalaruku]

I've read articles where game producers claim it to be dying, bbecause PC games are so easy to pirate & developers don't want to take chances with that.

 

[BizRodian]

I'm not a PC gamer so much because I think it's the best system for games, I'm a PC gamer because I own a PC, and therefore have no need to buy another device just to play games. It just doesn't make economic sense to me. So if something doesn't come out on PC, I don't play it. Sometimes I miss out on a title I'd like, but it's not worth buying another system for. Maybe if I played sport games or was more fond of generic shooters, I'd feel different.

It's a niche market, sure, but so are most things I really enjoy. The state of PC gaming seems a lot better now then it did 10 years ago. Just my experience, but ports are a LOT better than they used to be, and games are way less buggy out of the box.

Consoles do a lot of things right, though. I wish more PC games supported local multiplayer (I have two screens, it'd be perfect for deathmatching or co-op!), and I'd kill to get the chance to play something like Rock Band. Still, overall, PC gaming is the best choice for this gamer.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It's not dead, but it is smaller than console gaming.

No it's not.
It's bigger than all the consoles put together.

In which way specifically? Cause it's sure as shit not in software sales.

That and the PC just doesn't have as large a range of genres as consoles do.

There are more major and renowned developers for consoles so that's were the investments are.

The PC just hasn't had the amount of classics it did in the 90s.

Now it's crappy console ports, zombies, zombies, zombies, uninspired FPSs and RTSs.

no genres?

*points to the steam store genre selector*

no companies?

*points to the entire developer selector for steam*

No money in sales?

*points to the money made by steam every single year*

want me to go on? because i can do this all day.

You didn't prove how those lead to PC leading in any fashion.

Steam Genre Selector: Most of the games on steam that are not RTSs, Valve, or uninspired FPSs sell better on console.

Steam Developer Selector doesn't prove anything. Thete are still more major developers on the consoles than there are that work with Steam. That is a fact. There are lots of developrs that aren't on Steam pal.

And never did I say no money in sales. I'm pretty sure that Black Ops can prove that alone. I highly doubt Steam makes as much money as company like EA, Activision or Square Enix based just off of Steam alone. My point was that consoles in general make more money for devs and publishers than PC. That's also a fact.

Basing your entire arguement off of Steam was stupid. I'm talking ALL PC and ALL console. Steam is just one aspect of the PC. And if your going to say things like, "points to money made by Steam", put up a link to help your point out.

Last time I check Valve was making $70 million.

Last time I checked the Activision part of Activision Blizzard was raking in 2.9 billion a year. Which is my point. PC isn`t dead but it sure as shit doesn`t make money like major console companies do.

so you're basing the sales on ONE MULTIPLATFORM GAME? and never did i say its ALL steam. List the developers if you want but the fact of the matter is that most developers are mulitplatform. Sell better on console? Where are you basing your facts since digital distribution don't divulge their numbers.

For your information you are trying to compare A DIGITAL STORE TO GAME PUBLISHERS. STEAM IS NOT A PUBLISHER, ITS A STORE. Why not compare Target to mcdonalds while you're at it? Console developers? That implies the console exclusive companies which limits the companies to console exclusive developers which are quite small. If you notice console developers are big because consoles are expensive to develop for and high risk while the PC is low risk and cheap to develop for. Your gaggle of "big dogs" can't stand a fucking chance against the thousands of developing studios on PC. Need i pull out the game numbers of PC games versus console games?

I never based my arguement off of one multiplatform game. I based off of a company. I didn't mention a game. Nice try at word twisting. You essentially used Steam for all of your points so I pointed out that one company makes a massive amount more than Valve which deals mostly with PC. You really need to learn how to argue. And in terms of the big dogs not standing a chance against the thousands of developing PC studios, that statement is just asinine. You want to pull numbers out to prove me wrong? Allow me.

Out of the top 10 best selling video game franchises only one of them is exlusivlely PC. The Sims. The rest are console exclusive or games that were released on all platforms but sold more on consoles due to PCs always getting shafted on release dates.

Black Ops alone, which is the most Pirated PC game of this year, still made $1 billion dollars faster than Avatar, the top best selling movie of all time.

Yes there are thousands of developing PC studios. Likewise for console based studios. There are probably more developing console developers than on PC. Please name these thousands of PC studios. Then name what they've done. The develoing console studios grow faster then the developing PC studios. This can be show with Blow Entertainment, The Behemoth, and many companies that have released indie successes on XBL/PSN. I personally haven't heard of many developing PC studios but apparently you claim there are Thousands.

I never said PC was dead.

But comparing it's growth to the console industry is just silly.

Indie releases on XBL/PSN isn't what a console developer makes. An indie release for XBL/PSN is practically the same as an Iphone game. The PC however supports much more indie studios due to the lack of fees that are required to develop for the console. This is why only big companies can be true console developers. The cost to make is so big, and the chance to get the money back is too small. "there are probably more console developers" isn't going to cut it. Want numbers? Okay here's the numbers.

Decent (non shovel ware, 70% score) games by Platform:
PC: 1275
XBOX 360: 479
PS3: 341
WII: 242

If consoles have more developers, you would think they would have more games than the PC. However, this is a far cry from the old generation. Also i should note that this graph only shows games with 5 reviews or more and does not include free games like Dwarf fortress, or survival crisis Z.

PS2: 792
Xbox: 472
Gamecube: 263

If you notice the total number of general console games DROPPED since the last generation. PC may have been hurting last generation but this generation it has jumped back in a big way.

You calling a console indie game the same as an iPhone game really makes not take you seriously anymore. Braid, Castle Crashers, Trine, Costume Quest, and Joe Danger are not comparable to iPhone games.

And where the hell are you getting your numbers from? If you can't post up a link then these numbers are bullshit. And how the hell did you find numbers for "non shovelware" games? Prove that please. That and you cutting out shovelware really skews the numbers, sorry to say.

If consoles have more developers, you would think they would have more games than the PC.

If the PC has more developers than how come there are more big name titles on the console? And just because there's more doesn't mean they have a large library of games.

This is why only big companies can be true console developers. The cost to make is so big, and the chance to get the money back is too small

You know it's just as expensive to create a major PC game as it is to make a major console game right?

Now back to your ghost numbers.

You say there are:
345 PS3 games when there are 647.
479 Xbox 360 games when there are 747.
242 Wii games when there are 962.
792 PS2 games when there are 2015.
472 Xbox games when there are 966.
263 GC games when there are 640.
(All numbers found simply by typing in "X" games in wikipedia and google.)
You can't tell which companies are making the most shovelware by cutting out the numbers of shovelware. And the amount of games doesn't show if each game was sucessful.

The PC market isn't as big as the console market. Get it through your head.

Metacritic game archives. The minimum score is 70% AKA a decent game. If i included all the bad games the wii would take the cake out of all of them merely with shovel ware alone. That's why i cut it to only show the games that are of decent quality. Its really is no secret that some studios put out games like gingerbread ninja and big rigs to con people out of money. This is the curse of the game industry as people are bound to imitate anything in a half ass fashion.

PC gaming is cheaper to make a game for, as it requires no notification of a major company and requires no licensing fees. Everyone knows that console games take the cake in budget. Big name titles on console? You do realize its MULTI-PLATFORM RIGHT? Just because the big name titles are more aligned with console doesn't mean all the developers are there. IF you really notice, only a few people can afford to make games for the console anymore, and if it isnt AAA, then you shouldn't even bother because there will be no way to make your money BACK. Everything is multi-platform now. If you want to argue exclusives, then i know a site you can go to with a list of exclusives.

http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/

Not bigger than console gaming? let me put all of this in perspective:

Console:
-Requires extortionate fees to develop every game for.
-High risk of failure.
-High cost to develop the games.
-Few genres are profitable.
-Retail can work against your product in favor of a big franchise.
-Used game sales bleeding money from market.
-Highly profitable genres already saturated. It will be hard to get into the profitable genres.

PC:
-Development cheaper.
-More genres profitable.
-Steam allows easy access to gaming public.
-Doesn't need to follow set standards for technical or graphical quality (see mount and blade, minecraft, Dwarf Fortress).
-more accessible.

You know something else that was more accessible? The PS2. That console had the most games ever because it was open to developers without fees or troubles. Now, the PC follows that same path so you do the math and get that through your head.

"big success from BIG COMPANIES AND FROM WELL KNOWN TITLES PREDATING THIS GENERATION" doesn't mean shit to developers in how they choose their platform, its how easy it is to get into.

If you really do some research, PC gaming growing faster than a fat guy at a buffet full of cheeseburgers if all the news stories are to be believed.

Braid and Trine are on PC which means they are NOT console games. they are MULTI-PLATFORM. Just because a game is released on console and PC doesn't automatically make it a console game.

You know you'd have a point from this site:
http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/

if a lot of those games have been released on the PSN/XBL as well as on the consoles themselves.

Also using a critic based analysis to prove your point is a bit silly. There's no way to tell how many games that got a %70 or abouve actually suceeded.

All I'm saying is the PC isn't as big or as marketable as the console industry. I never said that PC was dead, or even failing. ALl you've done is try to make PC look like it's the biggest money making in the video game business. I never denied that PC makes money, it's just not making as much as console. Stop being thick. I never mention the failure of PC. This is what I get for saying that PC isn't as great as console. I get attacked by you. Just like on the "Iron Sights" thread. Sorry but your not convincing me that PC makes more money then console. It may be cheaper to make games for but how many of those games show signifacant growth in the PC market?

You keep saying "well...consoles are better" without any evidence. You make PC look like a dead market and consoles "are the future" which was the notion (lets all rush to this market! notion) that practically killed consoles in the 80s as people who had no business making games somehow making games.

You said:
-PC is dwindling (dying).
-PC relies on consoles for games (ports).
-PC games can never make as much money (starcraft proves you wrong).
-You're even clueless enough to list multi-platform games as console games (braid, Trine, etc) and claim them to be console games.

The way you try to back up your points only says "well.... console is big, PC is dead, u dum".

And again you twist my words.

I never said PC was dwindling. I said it's just not performing as well as the console market.
I never said that the PC relies on consoles for ports. I said that PC doesn't have as diverse of a market as console, and that the ports PC receives are sub par.

Using Starcraft wasn't the best choice. Starcraft is one game. I could go around naming console games that made millions more than Starcraft, but that's not the focus of the arguement.
I never claimed Braid, or Trine to be console games.
That's actually something that you did with this link:http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/
trying to pass it off as a site that shows exclusive PC games, when most of them are out on console or extremely small companies that contribute a miniscule amount to the PC gaming market.

If you're going to argue by lying and twisting my words, you've already lost the arguement and there's no need for me to communicate with you any further.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Now for the lack of renknown companies.
Ensemble Studios getting shut down is really a sign of the times. As good of a company as it was, they made and RTS every 2-3 years. That doesn't show longevity. Especially in a market where RTSs are pumped out so vehemously.

PC exclusive reknown companies are really dwindling. The only ones I can name are CD Projeckt and Blizzard Entertainment. With the loss of Black Isle, Bullfrog Productions, and a lot more PC developers that made classic after classic after classic gets shut down, it's really a sign of the markets shifting.

Objection: all those has one thing in common; the parent company decided too close down the subsidiarity. Black Isle, admittedly, went down due to some Interplay brouhaha, but Bullfrog and Ensemble both got shut down by their owners.

And neither Bullfrog nor Ensemble was PC exclusive companies.

Ultimately, companies getting shut down does not mean you can make grand statements about the state of a specific section of the market (see also: Pandemic, Clover Studios).

Yeah, it kind of does. Underperforming companies get shut down. A lot more of that happens in the PC world. Also Bullfrog and Ensemble made very little console games.

Proof? Where is it? You can't just say that "it happens more in the PC world". If you actually notice, game companies die of outside influences more than anything. Bullfrog died because EA wanted to shut it down, and Black isle shut down because herve caen made a BAD CONSOLE GAME WHICH SAPPED THEIR INCOME ENTIRELY. If consoles are so profitable, then Black isle would still be around today.

Um no. Your info on Black Isle is wrong. Just like you've been the entire time. Black Isle had nothing to do with Fallout BoS. That was Interplay. Herve Caen was an Interplay employee not a Black Isle employee. Fallout BoS was developed entirely by Interplay, not Black Isle. Black Isle was shut down a year before Fallout BoS came out. Nice try but you failed once again. And the all caps aren't making your points stronger. They're just highlighting which of your asinine arguement I should disprove.

Fallout BoS was (unfortunately) sucessful enough for a sequel, so even if it was under Black Isle then it wouldn't have sapped the company's income as you said.

And as for Bullfrog. EA didn't just want the studio so shut down. It was obviously not performing well enough to justify it's aquisition. As soon as Peter Molyneux left that was the last nail in the coffin for Bullfrog.

Listen, stop this nonsense. You're not going to prove that PC is bigger than console by using useless numbers and uninformed statements about companies.

misinformed position? Practice what you preach dude. What do you think i was saying? If herve caen didn't enter the console market black isle wouldn't have been disbanded. They didn't have the money to make fallout 3 anymore. BOS was not successful, it bankrupted the damn company and killed any hope of it coming back.

If the market was better for PC then Black Isle wouldn't have had to have it's funds taken. All of Black Isle's games have received critical acclaim. In a good market there is no reason for a company with that kind of rep to just shut down. Especially not because of one guy taking one games' funding. Black Isle was a small studio in the time where Blizzard, Valve and Epic Games ran the PC market. Had Diablo II never existed Fallout 2 probablt would have been a massive success. Unfortunately that was not the case.

If the console market was as good as you say It would have made its money back and been put back into fallout 3 which it didn't. It has nothing to do with the PC market. Van buren had a damn near religious cult following with shit tons of leaks. It was practically Half life 2 of the RPG world. Herve Caen believed that consoles would have made more money, which he was proved wrong.

And one incident proves that surely.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

When I say gamers I mean anyone that games. Anyone who is interested in the pixelated world. Anyone who plays video games.

Right... so if "PC gaming is not the attractive option to gamers" then explain people who game on PCs.

Now in the gaming market the PC is not as attractive as the console.

So you can't actually tell the difference in meaning between a statement of 'PC gaming is not the attractive option to gamers' and 'For a majority of gamers, consoles are the attractive option'?

Can you tell the difference between the statements "Consoles are low cost, purpose built computers with functions streamlined toward gaming and aimed at lowering the entry barrier to gaming" and "Consoles are cheap crap made for povs and retards"?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

read the headers for once.

reading is hard.