*Slow clap*

 

Agreed.

All the companies you name made their $$ before rampant piracy became an issue, and I’d hardly include EA in that group (especially considering EA have been huge console publishers for as long as I can remember) and Microsoft? They’re a monopoly ffs.

 Piracy IS the problem. Sure, there are other issues as well, but piracy is the big one.

if pirates were in the minority as you seem to assume, piracy wouldn't be a talking point whatsoever.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer_p2.html

 

You're full of it.  Your 'argument' can simply be summed up as:

Epic made one bad game I don't like, so I couldn't care less if they left.  Also, companies are making mad cash on the pc (Ignore my lack of statistics).

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THIS?  EVERY game company has made at least one bad game, if you hate a company due to one game you need to stop playing games fanboy!

Piracy IS an issue.  You have obviously never run a business with hundreds of thousands of people making salaries, that's pretty obvious.  The company that made World of Goo had 90% of the people using the game PIRATING it.  How is that not an issue?

It's pretty obvious that fanboyslike you will blame the company.  It could NEVER be the theif that stole from a company and never supported it could it?  Instead you bash companies for... one bad game.

I love the topic there about the humble indie bundle:

That pretty much explains the attitude from people like Zehdon.  It's not large corporations, it's just flat out being a cheap ass, and not caring what happens to the company.

Then acting like a fanboy when a company decides to no longer give you games, and find any method you can to bash them.  Even if that method is over ONE GAME.

Firstly, lets get this back on track since I feel we're getting off the issue at hand.  The President of Epic Games says that the big money in the games industry is on the consoles, and infers that the impact of piracy is responsible for this.
Secondly, I'm not defending piracy.  I find what they do disgusting.  I don't pirate games.  I don't condone piracy, and I actively go out of my way to call people out on it.

With that in mind, get comfortable; this is going to take a while.

Piracy has been 'rampant' on the PC ever since the 'COPY' command was instilled in MSDOS some many, many years ago.  With no copy protection and the incredibly unsafe 3 1/2 inch floppy disks being sold unmonitored thus enabling pirates, the PC platform must have died off!  Wait, no, it didn't - it exploded into a giant ball of money.  The Games industry is now the largest most profitable entertainment industry in the world today.

Do consoles releases make more money than the PC releases?  Sure do.  It also helps that consoles target a different breed of people altogether and are considerably more 'Main Stream' thanks to the efforts of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo and their closed platforms.  PC Gamers sit on their computers, usually alone, and play their games for hours upon hours.  Console gamers sit on their couches often with others and play, sometimes for meer minutes at a time.  The two have some crossover, but make no mistake - PC Games != Console Gamers.

Saying that there is more money in the console market compared to the PC Market is the industrial equivelant like saying that there is more money in Major League Baseball than in the Minor Leagues.  Of couse there is! It's sheer deduction.
How many people play games on their PCs? 
How many of those PCs are capable of running the port of the biggest console releases?
How many of those people who own such PCs are interested in such games?
How many can afford the high price tag on the game?
The numbers get smaller with each additional condition.  However, on a console the only conditions are: is the person interested?  is the person able to afford the game?  Since people who buy consoles are usually focused on particular types of games (i.e. not PC ones) is it any surprise in a market saturated in console ports and 'accessible' titles aiming to appeal to more the lucrative console mainstream that they don't sell so well on the PC which, by definition of its population is different?  Of course its not.  On July 27th, 2010 Starcraft II releases.  I'll wager it sells a few copies.  But, my god, how can a PC titles possibly expect to sell enough copies to keep its Developer out of bankruptcy without a console version of it?  Gee, I don't know, how about make a good game and then support it?

Pirates pirate games.  They pirate any game, it doesn't matter to them - they're all free!  If they have a passing interest in the game, they'll download it and check it out and so the numbers of pirated titles are massive.  However, as you should be well aware, a pirated copy != a lost sale.  The people who were going to buy the game still bought it.  The people who weren't, didn't.

PC's are simply no longer the focus of the industry.  Nesrie, a fellow forum goes, helped me reach that conclusion in a thread I made about Games being easier/more accessible than they used to be.  Consoles have proven that games can be mainstream and make literally BILLIONS; something PCs could never quite crack even with their best titles.  This is why sales records are broken time and again.  World of Warcraft set some new records in its time.  Grand Theft Auto IV smashed them.  Those figures were then smashed by Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  Both the latter were console focused titles while the former is just about the most successful PC titles that doesn't begin with 'The Sims'.  Expecting the open PC platform to perform the same as the heavily controlled and marketed consoles and using the lack of such performance as evidence of the platform having been killed by Pirates is simply unintelligent thinking.
Consoles were more heavily advertised and more heavily pushed than PC Gaming ever was and so they've grown the industry into something of a monster.  Now, a multi-platform non-PC title can sell literally millions of copies in a single day.  PC Gaming on the other hand, through sheer virture of its demographics and population breakdown, has a much harder time selling the same number of games.  Add into the mix that most PC Games today are console retreads or ports or simply dumbed down too far in a bid to try and achieve console-levels of mass appeal and you get PC titles that don't appeal to the bulk of the PC market.  Thus, they don't sell.  Piracy plays into that, absolutely.  But it is by no means the main reason.
Developers such as Epic have achieved monsterous levels of success on the consoles.  Their best selling PC titles couldn't hope to compete with the dollars 'Gears of War' has pulled in.  Then when 'Gears of War' released on the PC, it didn't sell.  Why?  Because it was made for consoles.  Was it pirated?  Sure was, and so was the Xbox 360 version.  Why are we supposed to be surprised that a console-focused title sold better on a console than on the PC?

I think you left your Caps Lock Key on there.
Anyway, if you're going to summise my argument then please understand it correctly first.  You're over-simplification of my points only points out your simplifed thought process.
The example I provided of Unreal Tournament 3 wasn't an example of a 'bad game' as such.  It's a shit PC title and a shit title compared to Unreal Tournament 2004, however if it were a companies debut title it wouldn't be so bad.  Epic took Unreal Tournament and made it console focused.  As my wall of text above explains, and which you'll most likely not read, console focused titles don't sell on the PC.  Period.  Epic, who made the console-focused Gears of War, experienced low sales of Gears of War's PC release and Unreal Tournament 3's PC release and then advised it was due to piracy killing the platform.  They fail to address the high volume and continued success of Unreal Tournament 2004.  The game still sells, available on Steam for example, and consistantly outsells Unreal Tournament 3.  How can it sell if piracy is such a rampant industry wide disease?  Simple: because its a PC title for PC gamers and it was a bloody good game to boot!


Actually, that's not true.  Valve and Blizzard have never made a 'bad' game, but now we're simply nit-picking.  Please also explain how I'm a fanboy and what I'm a fanboy of?  I own Unreal Tournament 2004 and Unreal Tournament 3 and I own Gears of War and Gears of War 2 on the Xbox 360.  How, exactly, does speaking out against a false comment by the developer of those titles make me a 'fanboy', TheDarkNight2008?



Ignorning the fact that the largest game development teams in the industry max out at around 300 involved persons (some of those people are simply apart of the companies Legal Division, or PR Division, but we'll include them to make the point) and that you don't own Activision - and if you do I'm going to kick you in your fucking face Bobby Kotick - I agree in part.  Piracy is AN issue.  Not THE issue.  The World of Goo, developed by an independant developer, has experience a 1/10 sale ratio?  Please, provide me with the concrete details containing active torrent information showing complete download figures and then sales figures provided by the relevant sources for the same period - from launch would the ideal set.  I'd very much like to see them.


So, can you explain what I'm a fanboy of?  Please?  It's seriously confusing me.
Anyhow, as most people in the industry know, a pirated download != a lost sale.  If it did, a pirates 8gb iPod would be worth around US$700,000,000,000.00 in sales, according to the RIAA, and thus the most valuable item that has ever existed in the history of the known universe.  Yes, some people illegally download the games that they want to play.  And yes, some of those people would've purchased the game if they were unable to pirate it.  A small percentage at best.  In order to counter this you use the information provided by Cracked.com's article.  Ok, let's take a look at that.
We all know the internet is full of asshats.  Asshats exist on the internet because on the internet you're disconnected from your real life persona; you're annoymous.  As an asshat, a person is capable of anything.  A series of game developers bundle their games then target the digitial distribution section of gamers - those who are comfortable purchasing games online via the internet - and then tell those people they'll accept whatever they want to pay and the proceeds will go to charity.  Appealing to an Asshats sense of morality is like attempting to tune into an Earth Radio station while you're on Pluto; it's never going to work.  Of the small portion of people who viewed the bundle, a smaller portion liked what they saw and then the smaller portion who were comfortable with buying the games online who at the same time aren't asshats (and judging from todays online world this portion is roughly 1%) bought the game.  And the fact that they paid so little for it surprises anyone?  Under real world circumstances, where it was sold in a store and the charity in question had people there to look into your cold dead gamer eyes and judge you for the amount you paid for the bundle, the results might be different.  However, this wasn't under real world circumstances, was it?  It was online, in an envrionment where there are no consequences.  If you honestly expected a different result, you don't understand the way people's minds work.
I'll leave you with this, one of my all-time favourites. Enjoy.

don't have time for a long response, but ill do what i can.

that's a ludicrous comparison; unless its your position that there's significantly less than 40 million (number of 360s sold as at jan 2010) PCs available to play games?

far more than you seem to think there is. intel & AMD & nvidia all seem to be doing OK.

almost any gaming PC sold in the last 5 years.

that's a lot of talking to ignore the obvious: there are LESS console units floating around yet they still sell far more games. more people have bought WoW than have bought a 360. that shows you just how many gaming PC are out there.

you're living in a fantasy land if you think the levels of piracy from 20 years ago can be equated to the levels of piracy today. back then i could share around a few disks with my friends or maybe purchase copied stuff at a market. i didn't have the entire world's catalogue of games at my fingertips and the ability to 'share' with my closest billion 'friends'. not to mention that the costs of developing software 20 years ago was so much smaller than it is now.

you seem like a smart, regular guy. i don't quite understand why you think piracy isn't a significant problem. it is the #1 reason we're seeing a shift to a focus on console development. its not about development houses wanting to making billion dollar profits, its about wanting to be able to make enough to stay in business.

piracy has already killed PC gaming.

Theres something people seem to be forgetting in the equation of PC game sales. The user base of these platforms are NOT set for life. During the last decade many PC users have switched to a dual PC/console setup or gone straight to full console (with thier old PC for ancillary tasks like trolling internet forums). Conversly the number of console owners who "looked for more" that went to PC are few - usually kids who grew up with an xbox and wanted the "next level".

*Note this is all my opinion based on market trends and anecdotes and many forum posts I've read.

Therefore there are not that many pc hardcore left who are willing to buy GoW for thier PC (I did and would buy the rest if PC ported - I can appricate console games, but only on my improved game experince PC) but clearly the millions on PC don't want it. EVEN thier OWN piracy 'numbers' support this, its not like they are saying they lost seven million sales due to piracy (I hope - lol).

 

The end result is the PC returns to its roots before the action generation came along in the late 90s. Stratergy and RPG, depth and gameplay. Small groups of people dedicated on small games. As long as we have some PC only developers who don't think interfaces from 1985 are the height of usability then we are golden.

Epic can go tuck themselves in.

 

I dont see how there is any difference of pirating losses between pc and consolesto Anyone with a Dreamcast could tell you that there isn't.   There were pirated versions of almost every xbox and ps2 game available to find to play on the dreamcast.  Lets not forget those nesterDC and GenesisDC discs everyone passed around.  The 360 and Ps3 are both hackable as well.  Pirating is just something they hide behind instead of the real reasons for going to console.

1.  People who are loyal to pc games will be playing them for years meaning the developer has to pay for alot of server space for that time.  while console gamers usually abandon a game after a year at most.

2.  On a console you don't get to use modder tools.  This means any mod you would gave to buy from the dev instead of making your own.  This also plays into the first reason since mods keep people playing the same game longer which they feel takes away from new game sales.

3.  Pc gamer attitudes.  We have been spoiled for so long with good games that any minor flaw might set off a flame war on the dev's forums. 

4. Exclusivity contracts.  Sony nintendo and microsoft are all willing to make deals with dev's so that they will only release games for their particular console.  That means automatic money.   Not many people turn that down.

  I actually have  some friends who have as recently as 3 months ago completely switched to pc gaming.  They couldn't believe the difference in quality that they found are now hooked on pc for life.  Their words not mine.

If piracy is so common on the consoles, explain why they still sell so many more games?

You can’t have your PC ‘bricked’ when playing pirate software, unlike the 360. And lets not forget that many a console user is about as technically capable as a baboon. That’s not to say piracy isn’t a problem for the consoles as well, but it’s a much smaller problem than it is on the PC. Otherwise, why are all these companies moving to cross platform, if not console exclusivity?

Actually, it has very little to do with the amount of consoles or PCs and all to do with audience or size of the audience.  Sorry, that's my fault for being unclear.  
How many people have state of the art PCs, game exclusively on them, play the highest end games and are interested in console titles?  The PC Market for something like Gears of War, for example, is small despite the fact that there are many people capable of running it.  On the consoles however, there are more people interested in that type of game - thats why they have a console - and they can all run it.  That's what I meant, sorry for not being clearer.


You forget that those companies also provide their tech to companies for other reasons, such as film rendering and powering the Xbox 360 to name two.  Anyway, the point is there isn't a way to locate the exact number of people who game on their PCs and would chose a PC version of a game over a console version.  
We can all agree, however, that whatever that number might be, its broken down into different groups - Hardcore RTS Fans, JRPG Fans, etc. - and that these niche markets are smaller than any one console's user base.  The Xbox 360 has, according to you, 40 million units for its install base.  Now, add in the Wii and the PS3 and not even The Sims - the highest selling PC title of all time - can match that and its not restricted to a closed platform.  Thats why they sell more on Consoles.  Console gamers buy a console for console games and Developers make a console game appeal to as many console-minded people as possible.


Go and spend AU$400.00 on a computer (cost of the Xbox 360 today).  Install Crysis 2 on that machine when its released and report back your average FPS.  Doesn't take an overly educated person to guess that the Xbox 360 version is going to run better.  Multiplayer match-ups will also be simpler, there will be no patching or compatibility issues and it doesn't need to be installed onto your hard-drive (although it speeds up load screens).  How much does a computer cost, today, that is capable of running the original Crysis with a rock-solid 30FPS?  More than an Xbox 360.  Any wonder why people gravitate towards the consoles?


I can run WoW of a Netbook; it doesn't require a 'gaming pc' and thats apart of its mass apeal - Blizzard designed it that way.  Its not reflective of the average system requirements for a PC Game today.  360s are cheaper, and the average person 360 owner purchases multiple games a year.  I, personally, own 13 games on my Xbox 360.  I've purchased only one this year - Mass Effect - however I purchased several last year.  The only PC games I purchased last year where off of Digital Distribution networks like Impulse because thats where the PC Games are - nearly all of retail PC releases are watered down affairs that I have no interest in or simply unappealing games in general.  Thats why the PC platform is 'dying'.


You have the ability to pirate games; any game, from any time, on any platform.  Why don't you?  Why do you think 'everyone else' is different than you?  Its not everyone else, its a percentage, and its a small percentage at that.  The 'levels' of piracy haven't changed; the numbers have though.  Gaming is no the biggest industry in the world, and as it has much more focus today than it did 20 years ago and thus more visible, piracy within the industry is also much more visible.

You've failed to address the fact that PC companies are still in business and people are still making games for the platform.  If there was in fact no money to be made because we're all pirates, why would they bother?  They treat the PC platform today as an after-though because, as I've addressed, there is more money on the consoles and the only releases we're seeing on the PC are water-down console ports that are usually buggy, glitching affairs that no self-respecting gamer could claim are decent.  And now people are 'shocked' when the same companies producing such half-arsed ports don't make money on the PC platform?


Then why are there still PC releases?  Why are there still PC exclusive companies in business todays still posting profits?  Why are companies even bothering with DRM when consoles make all the money?  Because PC Gaming is alive and well.  The PC industry has evolved and its still evolving and they want some of that Pie.  The biggest new innovations are still home to the PC and everyone knows it.

Why are console-minded developers even making ports of their console games for the PC? Well, profits, of course.  They want more.  Why did Epic release a Gears of War port for the PC?  The Xbox 360 version made them millions upon millions!  Because they want more.  Why did they release a PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3?  Because they want more.  Instead of making three different versions that appeal to each platforms demographics, thus increasing the cost of development, they release one version on all three and make as much money as possible off one game.  In the process, they aim for the lowest common demographic and thus alienate the PC crowd.  Then, they cry piracy when the game doesn't sell on the PC.

This post sums up the whole thread. Clearly, there IS a market for PC gamers. There ARE people willing to drop money on PC games.

However, it cannot be stated more clearly that PC is NOT the console for shovelware. Bringing your MW2s and your UT3s and your SupCom2s and you will be smacked commercially. This is why big commercial developers cannot succeed, and this is why indie developers are now thriving more than ever. You are either all in for PCs, or all out. You can't bring a half-console half-PC game like SupCom2 and UT3 to the PC and expect it to sell for both crowds.

I’m confused. How would you judge the size of an audience other than by how many computing units are sold?  

oh, there’s no doubt that there’s a difference in markets, but that really isn’t relevant. I’m not talking about console games selling more than console to PC ports, I’m pointing out that traditional areas of PC, such as FPS, now sell more on console. Look at a game like operation flashpoint: dragon rising- definitely more hardcore than any other shooter available on console, not your typical arcade button masher, yet it still wiped the floor with the PC sales (according to codemasters). Even if your hypothesis is correct, you still haven’t explained why traditionally PC-centric developers have shifted to console, for game genres that I wouldn’t consider to be obvious console friendly (such as GPG with supcom 2).

If the market for PC is so strong, why is every single developer saying otherwise, and why are they changing their business model?

Well, I hardly think nvidia are making a killing on 5 year old hardware, but sure, they make the odd dollar from a 360 sale no doubt. Agreed, it is very difficult to tell how many PCs are out there, but its definitely more than each individual console platform.

No, we cannot agree on that. there is no reason to assert that the PC player base is any more “niched” than any other platform, there is no reason that a hardcore RTS fan isn’t also a JRPG fan.

I don’t understand your point. Firstly, WoW has sold far more copies than the sims, and secondly nobody would expect any single title to sell as many copies as an entire platform of units (other than WoW of course). It’s a complete non sequitur.




Again, I am unsure of the relevance of your argument. I bet it will be easy to buy a $400 PC and run crysis 2 just fine. Hell, my 3.5 year old PC will run crysis 2 fine, and I bet its worth little more than $400 these days. But since you raised Crysis, another hugely pirated game, I’ll point out that piracy has sent crytek into cross-platform development.

Agreed that WoW’s requirements, being a server-based game, isn’t necessarily reflective of requirements as a whole. However it still represents a huge group of people who play games on their PC. And have you checked average system requirements lately? my 3.5 year old PC is still smashing modern games, because 90% of them are required to run on a console, which keeps PC system reqs quite low.

I don’t disagree with you that the watered-down affairs are a problem (indeed, that’s my entire point). You’re ignoring WHY PC games are watered-down affairs. What caused this sudden shift in business models? I’d love to hear your reasoning, because its pretty obvious to most people that the key issue here is piracy. Companies didn’t decide on a whim to start watering down their titles for shits and giggles. It occurred because of market forces, or more correctly, black market forces.

Because I know that piracy is killing (or has killed) PC gaming. And buying games is essentially voting for a product.

Not everyone, but certainly enough people to make it an issue.

You have no evidence for any of these assertions. If it was a small percentage, we wouldn’t see PC devs deserting the platform in droves.

Yes I have, I’ve pointed out that virtually every single PC developer has shifted to multi-platform development. From bioware to Id to valve to epic.

Because they spread the costs around between the 3 platforms.

And there’s more money on the consoles because of piracy levels on the PC. Piracy came first, watered-down console ports second.

Name them. Other than blizzard I can’t name a single AAA developer making PC exclusive titles, and they are buoyed by their WoW cash cow, and the fact that RTS remains a PC-driven market. The rest of these PC developers are making MMOs or niche strategy titles where the PC is still doing OK. They’re not making RPGs or FPSs or racing or sports or action or any other genre. Everyone that counts is multiplatform now.

PC gaming is doing just fine, PC sales are not. I think it’s a little retarded to point to DRM as if that shows that piracy isn’t a problem for the platform, rofl.

Finally I can agree with something you’ve said. But again, you miss the point. You’re always late to the party- complaining about the console port rather than explaining the shift to multi-platform development. Like I keep saying, piracy first, shift to console development second. Not the other way round

You judge the size of the platform by the number of Computing Units sold.  You can't use that to judge the audience. 
I'll use my Baseball reference again, but I'll make it clearer.  How many people do you think like Baseball?  A few?  Ok, now, Major League Baseball is very different to games played in your local Baseball park, but both sets of people still love Baseball.  Do you think there are people out there who love those local games more than Major League? Sure are, a small number.  Everyone can go and see local games, but not all Baseball fans do - some like the big lights of the Major League.
The audience on PCs is similar to this; most people can game on their PCs exclusively however not everyone does, some people like sitting on their couch and playing games on their TV.  So, you can't use the number of PCs as an indication of the size of audience for PC games.  Consoles, however, are designed to play games.  Everyone who owns a Console plays games.  The install base is an indication in this situation of the size of the audience.


I'll address this point in particular since this also addresses some of your other points and will save us both some time.

What you're asking basically asking is why are companies like Bioware, previously focused on PC only games, making games for consoles and then why are they focusing on consoles more so?  You attempt to answer the question with piracy: piracy lowers PC sales so vastly that Developers are forced to develop for consoles to simply stay in business.
Firstly, because the console install base is large enough to support niche markets and thus large enough to see a returns on niche titles that don't appeal to the typical console gamer games sell.  Bioware, and any other company in the industry, are in the business of making games.  Since the Playstation and PS2 shot gaming into the social mainstream, console gaming has been making a lot of money.  And I mean a lot.  Tapping into that mass market is simply a business decision to make more money, which is what most business are out to do.  Its simple numbers.
The reason they stay and eventually change focus to consoles is merely because they're following the money.  Mass Effect on the PC is considered fairly average compared to the titles of yesterday, like Baldur's Gate II, while on Xbox 360 it's one of the best RPGs available.  Baldur's Gate II on the console would be considered too 'wordy' and 'slow'.  I, personally, appreciate both.  The Console market, being more mainstream, features around a 1/2 ratio of shovelware; half the games released during a consoles lifetime aren't really worth playing.  Look at the 360s release of Supreme Commander.  Also, look at the Wii, for another example.  Thus, titles that are merely good on the PC are exceptional by Console standards and thus make more money in the Console market.  Low Standards equates to more sales.
Why are Developers, like GPG, releasing Console ports of their PC centric titles that have a history of not selling so good on Consoles?  Because more money is simply better than less money.  The ease of porting a title to the Xbox 360, for example, from a PC is fairly simple thanks to the unified architexture of the systems Microsoft designed.  This means its fairly inexpensive to make a PC titles and then port it to the Xbox and vice versa.  Even if you don't sell many titles on the 360, because the market is so damn massive you'll more than likely make back your porting costs and then some.  Combined with the sales from the PC title, and the risk associated with producing a game decreases significantly.  It's smart business.  What Developers are seeing is - obviously - more sales on the Xbox and thus shift focus to where the money is.  See Supreme Commander 2, which changed quite a bit from its previous itteration to broaden its appeal.  Fans of the first one, like me, who would've laid down their money on launch for the title where put off, while Console gamers put off by the firsts one inaccessibility and terrible porting where treated to a superior game and thus they purchased it.  Now, Supreme Commander 2 also sold fairly well on the PC - clearly there is still a market there for it.  GPG's decision to focus on the Console market paid off.  Why wouldn't they continue to make console games for the PC if it reaps greater financial benefits?


This is going to sound backwards, but the reason why this is apparent because PC Developers who have made games for the consoles have tasted greater success with the latter; its not so much about the PC market being weaker, or filled with pirates, its that the console gamers outnumber the PC ones and outnumber their purchases thus creating demand.
Why do they outnumber their purchases?  Hard to really place a single definition on it.  Keep in mind its taken Consoles from the release of the NES to release of the Xbox to really step up to PC Gaming.  PC Gaming has no single marketing push, PC Gaming doesn't have the unified backing of a large multi-billion dollar company.  Advertisements for Xbox 360 games are advertising the Console as much as they are advertising the platform while a PC Game advertisement is pretty much just advertising the game.  When you buy a game console, you do it because you want to buy games.  When you a buy a PC, you do it because you want to do PC Stuff and possibily also play games.  A person who buys a console often doesn't just buy one game - what would be the point in shelling out the money for the console for one title - thus the purchasing habits are very different for both markets.


Agreed on that point, however if they were a hardcore JRPG fan the PC market leaves a lot to be desired with the best in the JRPG business - Square Enix - making titles for consoles for as long as I can remember.  This is my point.  The console has FPS, RTS, RPG, Racing, Shooters, Fighting, Casual, Download, Arcade, etc.  The average console gamer is going to cross genres and is going to own many different titles.
I own an Xbox and a PC and so does my sister.  On the PC, I play Torchlight and Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and I also play RPGs.  On the consoles I play FPS, Racing, Fighting, etc.  My sister on the PC plays The Sims.  On the consoles she plays RPGs like Fable II and Oblivion and Eternal Sonata and Blue Dragon, etc.
Now, the market for those titles exists on the PC, its just much, much smaller.  Racing fans - at least, the majority - probably watch racing events on their TV.  Sitting on their computers probably doesn't compare to sitting in front of their TV with their friends playing whatever racing game.  The industry has shifted, evolved.  It shifted because Consoles appeal to more people in more ways every day.  The proof is simply in the numbers and the attitudes.  I'm not saying one niche is exclusive to one platform and that niches don't overlap, I'm saying Consoles have captured the market from the PC.  The PC didn't lose it because of piracy it lost it because the consoles simply delivered what the majority wanted and continue to want.
 

In terms of per-unit sales The Simss series, thats number, number two and number three and all of their expansion packs and console releases combined, have sold more total units than the World of Warcraft franchise.
And actually thats exactly what developers like Epic are doing.  They're making console games like Unreal Tournament 3, releasing them for console markets like that of the PS3 and Xbox and then holding the PC platform to the same standards in terms of sales.  If games like The Sims and World of Warcraft continue to sell literally tens of millions of copies on the PC, then it stands as a clear indication that there is a market on the PC.  The problem is it requires a diffrent type of game than the larger, more lucrative console market and developing two different games costs twice as much as developing one game and releasing it on two different markets. 


A $400.00 PC capable of running Crysis 2 to the same degree as the Xbox 360?  By all means please point out this incredible machine.  A Widescreen monitor alone will set you back around $150.00.  And that plays into the appeal of the consoles; console gamers just want it to work.  They don't want to tinker, they don't want to mess around with drivers; PC Gamers don't mind any of that, in fact some of us prefer it that way.
Crysis was so successful for Crytek that it allowed them to develop an entirely new cross-platform engine to provide them with even more money.  How is this evidence of priacy killing Crytek and forcing it to the consoles?  The allure of the success of Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo 3, Uncharted II and Call of Duty had more to do with a developers change in direction than piracy.  I promise you the advertisements of Crysis pushed its technical achievements quite hard; most people probably pirated it to see if it ran and how good it looked, even people who weren't going to buy it.  Again, part of the issue.  Piracy pushes some impressive numbers, however this doesn't equate into those same numbers as lost sales.  Weird things happens when you make something free, and this has to be taken into consideration.  People who wouldn't have bought a title download it since it costs nothing.  Thus, the number of pirated copies increases.  This cannot be used as an indication of lost sales.
How many TV shows or movies have people watched simply because they were on TV.  It doesn't cost anything apart from time to take a look.  Similar thing here.  As I've said, piracy is a problem, but it's not the problem.


Which is why they don't sell.


Sudden shift? Clearly you don't know your history.  Why did Microsoft make the Xbox?  Why did Sony make the Playstation?  Piracy?  They did it because they saw the potential that developers are catching wind of; to turn gaming into the largest possible industry on the earth.  This isn't some massive, overnight trend that pirates created - it happened because companies like Microsoft and Sony paid a lot of money to help it happen.
Once they had their consoles in peoples lounge rooms, developers learned that in order to broaden the appeal and make more money the games had to be simpler, easier to pick up and play.  Long winded tutorials and hour long exposition pieces from PC titles didn't fly, so the game quite literally changed.
Now, with everyone gaming on their couches, the backlash is reaching breaking point.  PC Gamers want PC titles, and we're not getting them.  We're getting games dumbed down to broaden the appeal to try and get more profits because developers have seen that its possible.  Getting a 50% return your game's development was probably considered at one point a pretty good return.  Now that profit margain expectation has jumped thanks to the success consoles were able to achieve, and developers are expecting PC titles to keep up.  Its a trend that has been happening for a long time.  I've addressed it many times.  It has little to nothing to do with piracy.


They're not deserting, they're changing focus.  They're following the money and releasing PC ports or multi-platform games.  Development costs have sky-rocketed thanks to the expectations for visual presentation, voice acting and general polish.  Making normal maps wasn't an issue ten years ago.  To keep up, they need to make more money from their games, thus they must either target the biggest market - consoles - or lower their games technical prowess and be prepared to accept less profits.  Again, piracy doesn't enter into the picture.  Once you add it in, it places additional support for console focused development, but it in no means provdies the only or the biggest reason.


Targeting the largest market is simply good business for companies looking to make money.  Why do you think chasing the money means they're running away from piracy when these companies still make PC games?


Bingo.  Why?  To increase profit margins.  Piracy doesn't enter into the picture.

Sorry, you're simply not understanding the market forces at play. 
Piracy didn't create consoles.  Piracy didn't create the Xbox or the Playstation. 
(Actually, I read an interesting piece about how chipped PSOnes became so common they actually created a larger intended audience for the Playstation 2 (can't find it on Google, sorry).) 
Anyway, there's more money on Consoles because, as I've said, companies like Microsft, Sony and Nintendo have spent billions making it that way.  They moved gaming out of the basement on PCs and into the lounge room on Xboxs and Playsation and are making a god damn fortune because of it.  Why does this market change suddenly mean piracy killed the PC market?  The PC Gaming Market declinded because of the efforts of Consoles infringing on their market and delivering what the majority of customers wanted, not because Piracy pushed Developers to make games for the Consoles to stay in business.


Hahaha, what?
"Oh my business? Don't worry, she's going great.  We're just dead, is all".
How can you claim that the PC Gaming Industry is dead because of piracy, but that PC Gaming Industry is also doing just fine?


DRM doesn't prevent piracy, it prevents game re-sales.  If DRM prevented piracy there wouldn't be a problem, now would there?  Thats its intended purpose; to prevent reselling of games to maximise profits on PC titles to bolster the total sales of a PC title.  They're doing the same thing to Console titles, as well.  Why, is piracy killing console gaming too?


You've missed my point entirely: remove piracy from your thinking, because its an issue, not the issue.

Consoles were made because they appeal to a different market than PCs.  Nintendo realised this way, way back with the NES.
Consoles now make more money per title because console gaming appeals to more people than PC gaming.  Thus, more sales on the Consoles compared to the PC in total.  Why?  PC Gaming appeal to people who like computers and games.  Consoles appeal to anyone who simply like games.  More people like games than the number of people who likes games who also like to game on their PCs.
Console ports make developers money by increasing the number of potential customers to inclusde all platforms.
Low PC sales result because PC Gamers don't like console games, which have replaced PC Games, which is kind of why the console market was created in the first place.
So, now we're supposed to believe that it actually piracy that has caused PC Gaming's numbers to drop?

i just typed out a response and got the 'forums go boom' and im not going to bother again. needless to say i think you're wrong on your trivialisation of piracy, and have virtually every PC developer as evidence. whereas you have...your gut feeling.

Damn, if you use the Back command on your browser the forum usually saves your post, at least for me.

Anyway, I have the visible shift from a PC Gaming focused Games Industry to a Console Gaming focused Games Industry as evidence to my claims and theory which is then supported by the meer existance of multi-platform Developers and the continued existance of profitable PC Releases.

You have no evidence, no facts, no theories and nothing substantial - not even logic - to support your claims that the existance of multi-platform developers is evidence of widespread, industry destroying piracy.  The existance of a multi-platform developer is evidence of a multi-platform industry - it is not evidence of one platform being filled with pirates and thus your entire argument falls apart.  The shift from PC to Console centric design is explained in my post and solidifies my argument.

You've failed to present a rebuttle to any point I've made.

First of all, you mention the monitor and use it in an argument about the xbox 360.  That's hardware, so where is the mentioning of a tv?

I could easily link you with a pc that would be more powerful then a 360 at newegg, and that is alos with the xbox with a 120 gig hdd being at $300!

Secondly, YOU have no evidence.  The guy above has evidence, it's called the DEVLOPER WHO MADE THE GAME.  You routenly ignore what the developers say and pull crap out of your ass.

I also love your comment about drm being to stop second hand sales.  Didn't you before hand say that drm has been on pcs for years?

So how come I can sell games with paper drm?  How come I can sell games with starforce or securom?

Of course you will just respond to this with more assumptions.

Since you want to act like you have logic Zehdon, let me ask you a logical question:

How is it that some internet kid in a forum, like yourself, knows more then developers and executives who look at their bottom line, know who is online, and if they are pirating, and then has to adjust thing accordingly?  So all of these developers and executives who see all of this are just full of crap, and some kid is right because 'the devs make mad money'?

I for one can easily admit that I don't know all the facts, and I could possibly be wrong.  Maybe it could be some huge scandel.  But I for one trust the words of good developers and bean counters who manage their own money and know what is going on over some internet kid who thinks he is right.

A TV is non-specific to a console; a monitor is specific to PC and thus included in the price.  How many people would you imagine don't own a computer or an Xbox/PS3/Wii who also own a computer monitor?  How many do you imagine might own a TV that doesn't own a console or a PC?
With a desktop computer you're paying for the PC itself and usually the Monitor, the Keyboard and the mouse all together in a bundle.  Some users buy just a PC and use pre-purchased keyboards, mice and monitors they have already or purchase them seperatly.  Xbox 360s and Playstation 3s out-perform any computer in its price range, hence the attraction.


Actually, what you'll do is look up the Xbox 360's specifications and then provide a PC which surpasses them.  Considering the Xbox 360 is rocking 512mb of RAM, it's not hard to do.
Present me a PC that can run Crysis at maximum settings for less than $300.00 and I'll conceed the point.


What crap am I pulling out of my arse? The president of Epic Games states that the PC Platform is less profitable due to rampant and widespread piracy.  I advise that his assessment of the market is incorrect based on the advancement of the Console platforms - he's simply not taking into consideration that the PC Market isn't the focus of the industry and hasn't been for some time and that this problem is self-reinforcing due to the industry's shift to console focused games.  I provide detailed information as to my reasoning and explain my logical thinking.


DRM Software has existed since any company decided to dictate and enforce what it considered 'rights' for its customers.  I have never claimed to know exactly how long this practice has been in place.  Copy Protection has existed in some form for many years.  Some 3 1/2 floppy discs actually shipped with a physical block to prevent a PC from writing to the disc.

What do you mean by Paper DRM? A Cd-Key?  That's Copy Protection rather than DRM.

Any title that requires registration of the game to play - Dragon Age, Spore, Steam Titles - seeks to prevent the user from selling their game by linking their titles together.  For example, to successfully sell a registered title of Spore the user must also provide their EA Account Details.  If they have multiple titles on the Account, selling the Account forces them to sell all of their titles.  The CD-Key is tied to the account and thus even a valid CD-Key is rendered useless for online connectivity without the username and password for the appropriate account.  Same thing with Steam.  They can't legally prevent second hand sales however through the use of the EULA they can make things legally binding which are not otherwise protected by law in an effort to prevent a person from being able to sell their game or to ensure that the game is worth considerably less if they do.


What assumptions have I made?


A developer doesn't know who is online, who is pirating and where or how they pirated it.  A developer has some internal figures such as who has attempted to access their servers or updated through Steam, for example.  They don't have a large server somewhere tracking pirated copies of their games providing numbers of copies sold and copies pirated - they have to estimate.  One such method is through visual observation.  When a requested to their servers is denied because a version failed to authenticate, they can take this to mean that the person has a pirated version of the game.  It can mean other things as well, however that's probably the main reason.

The President of Epic Games would certainly have access to the companies estimated figures, assuming they even compile figures on such things.  However, their actions speak louder than words.  Gears of War on the PC sold less than the Xbox 360 counter-part.  We all know this.  Unreal Tournament 3 sold less on the PC than its console counter-parts.  We know this.  Unreal Tournament 2004, however, continues to be successful mostly due to it being a better game than either of the two mentioned.  Now, if pirates were truly destroying the industry, how could any game be successful on the PC platform?  Why would Epic Games have made Steamworks a core component of the UE3's latest version, ensuring developers can develop for the PC platform with ease?  If the PC platform was a sinking ship, would would they waste the considerable development costs and time to support it?

Now, you're saying that the President of Epic Games is in a better position to speculate on such things than myself.  In terms of Epics own games he knows their numbers better than I do.  However, in terms of the industry as a whole, no one has solid, concrete information on the numbers of piracy compared to market wide sales and thus anyone's speculation is valid if they're backing it up with sound theories - which is pretty much what we have to go off of right now.  We have estimates, which are publically available, however the better indication are market wide trends - also publically visible.  For example, the President of Epic Games has deduced that because console versions of their games sell significantly more than PC versions and their previous PC versions sold more, there must be a problem with piracy on the PC platform.  There is a problem with piracy, absolutely, but if it were a systemic problem - where by at least 51% of all people using PCs were pirating every game they have instead of buying them - the continued existance of successful PC releases couldn't occur.  By it does occur.  And Epic are putting money into that occurance and banking that it will continue and so the President of Epic Game's claims fall down.  He's drawing incorrect conclusions based on the data at hand.

The market for the games Epic made in the past (Unreal, Unreal Tournament) no longer resides exclusively on the PC as it has in the past.  The majority of that market - the mainstream market - has migrated to either the console market or to a hybrid system, where by a gamer has both a console and a PC and makes purchases based on factors too numerous to mention.  Since they make exclusively big budget, mainstream titles, their console sales figures will always be larger.  The market has shifted, and Epic are not taking this into consideration and are using the lack of comparable sales from their previous titles when the PC was still the mainstream or at least still able to compete as a mainstream platform as evidence of this, when in fact the data doesn't support this conclusion when viewing it from an industry wide level.  They're attempting to justify their poor PC performance by saying pirates killed the platform, rather than by saying our games aren't what the PC gamers want any more.  The people who want to play what Epic make play games on the consoles and thus buy them on the consoles.  The market shifted, it evolved.

Are you honestly serious with that first reply?  A monitor is specific to a pc, so then how do you watch a console game?

Who gives a crap if pcs come with monitors?  You are once again making ASSumptions, going as far as COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT THAT HARDWARE DOES NOT COUNT AS A DISPLAY!

Either way, you have to have a display to view a pc or a console, so you can't count a monitor with a pc unless you also count a display with a 360.  You are just full of it.

Btw, most tvs today can also be used a pc, so try being less ful of shit the next time you respond.

Since when does the 360 play anything that looks like the pc on maximum settings.    I just built a quad core with an ati 5750 vid card for 600 for someone.  I can easily build a high end dual core with that same card for about 400.  That pc will play crysis at maximum settings at least 30 fps.   Plus you have to remember that when consoles originally come out they are between 500-700 dollars.

  How is one company .. Epic a drove.

ps.  crysis has a crappy engine that will run clunky on computers that will be built 10 years from now.

 

Present me Crysis running on the Xbox. Crysis 2 will run on Consoles with an engine that hss been improved. Console games usually run at 720p without the fancy stuff like AA and so on.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-radeon-hd-4670-review/9

With an ATI 4670 Crysis runs at medium setting at 1280*1024 (probably more than Xbox settings with 720p) at 44 fps. Your're talking about a 50$ graphics card here.

But if you're talking about maximum settings than present me a console that would even run Crysis with those settings (or even 1600*1200 with some AA). When comparing consoles to PC you would have to take into account the graphics settings consoles display. Take GTA IV for example. IIRC minimum to medium settings for PC equal the settings for the Xbox.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/952150-grand-theft-auto-iv/54408592

Consoles have been around for a few years and nowadays it is basically possible to get a PC for 300$ that is as powerful as a nextgen console. And then almost everybody has a PC even it is just for surfing the interwebs. So you just need a mainstream graphics card (50 to 100$) and you could start playing AAA games...

Wow Zehdon and Raistlin make some great arguments for their sides. Hands down both of you are to be commended.

That being said I feel the need to chime in a few things brought up from my own perspective.

First is that while I agree with Zehdon that piracy isn't "THE" issue, I do beleive it is a bigger issue than he is giving weight too. All the arguments he has forwarded about the other reason are probably spot on. If a company can make money off it they will. But that argumaent also hurts his, if a company loses any money to piracy to them it is to much to bear.

Lets face it companies have gotten a hell of alot greedier in the last 20 years I have been gaming. Even one lost dollar is to much for them. I garuntee you that if anyone released an unpiratable platform. Every Developer would drop every thing else and that would  be their focus.

This is not to say they wouldn't dabble in the other platforms. As long as they could turn a profit, any kind of profit it is worth it.

But Raistlins insistance that Piracy is the number one issue is also misguided. Again as long as they can make a profit they are going to. And like I said since companies have gotten so greedy, yeah they are going where the biggest margins are. And right now that is consoles. Production costs and time on consoles for what would be considered a great game there is alot smaller than what it would take to get the same rating on a PC title. Us PC users are the snobs of the gaming industry and we EXPECT alot more bang for our buck.

As for the 400 dollar pc argument, sorry not happening.  I own 2 PC's, a PS3 and a Wii. I spent 300 dollars for each console, but I spent 2k each on both computers, and another 700 easy upgrading one of them to dual 23 inch monitors and dual 1 gig graphic cards. I know for a fact your 400 dollar machine and no current console is going to close to the preformance my rigs give me.

The TV argument, well it is not solid either, I spent 2500 on a 52 inch LCD. But the decision to buy that TV never even took in consideration my consoles. I bought a 52 inch tv for my movies and tv shows. In fact I bought that TV long before I finally got my PS3 or Wii.

Also the another reason the margins are larger on consoles comes from % spent on the family. I have a wife and 2 children, one being a 12 year old son. Now I spent 2700 on my rig easy and didn't even bat an eye. But my son 's computer is a 8 year old hand me down. There is no way in hell I will ever spend that kind of money for a computer for him unless it was going to give him a way to pay me back lol. On the other hand I will and did spend 300 dollars on the Wii for him.

Now I cannot be to different from alot of parents out there with the exception that they might not be willing to spend 2700 on their own rigs. That alone gives the consoles a huge market share over PC users. and of course the greedy companies are going to follow where the biggest margins are.

The DRM argumaent is actually helping kill the Pc market also, their way of combatting piracy makes me not want to by any games that contain it. I know everyone says anyone can get internet acsess. But in this economy alot of people are having to cut back either voluntarily or otherwise. On top of that I lost my cable/phone internet the other day due to an outage. Was down for about 12 hours. During that time I couldn't play some of my games because of the required internet connection issue. That alone sent me fuming.

But for Raistlins side PC games are a shitload easier to pirate, that is not helping the pc industry in the least little bit.

So yeah Piracy is a big issue. No it isn't the number 1 issue. But it is a bigger issue than some are giving it credit for. But it also not the end all issue about the problems of PC gaming that some claim either.

I think the size of the piracy issue in reality may differ from the size of the issue when talked about in company board rooms, if you get my meaning.

I’ll just remind all the demigod players about DG at launch – 18,000 legit users, 180,000 pirates. That seems a rather substantial issue from where I’m from.

uh, who is talking specifically about epic? I'm talking about almost every single PC developer.

Well yeah. Every marketing suit is going to say that piracy was a huge hit to sales when the game doesn't sell well. IMO part of the reason they say this is to 1) kiss ass to inveigle themselves into better positions that pay more and 2) keep their jobs.

 

"I don't grin like a moron, I grin like a sociopath." | Clinicalizing everything makes you sound like a genius or an ass.