I think they have to put piracy checks in single player games.. I have no idea why they would need to in multiplayer.. simple key checks stop it
but in single player, if you left the dvd open.. what happens is everyone pirates it day one- if the crackers have to work on it awhile to make it playable, some will just go out and buy the game- so it's increased sales
think the batman game shows where they are headed with it.. put a check into the game that's nothing but a front.. the crackers think they've cracked the game, but another check knows it's running illegit.. it let's the player go to a certain point and then billyshafts their ass
this leads to a broken version being posted.. the saddle poppers are foaming at the mouth and then bam! they get a facefull of sea grogin and run to the store to buy a working copy
Whenever there is an argument or discussion about PC versus console gaming, I love to read the difference in the way an obvious console gamer expresses themselves, compared to an obvious PC gamer.
PC gamers make good points, have interesting views and tend to articulate better than console gamers, who pretty much don't have brains.
I'm not just a crappy PC fanboy either, I still play my Wii and xbox, and enjoy it! but clearly, smarter & better informed people use PC's as a primary gaming platform.
I think we'll definitely see a genre distinction emerging. Racing, adventure & platform games are great on consoles, and RTS, FPS games are great on PC.
there's still room for both though, look at RE4 on the wii for example, has anyone -ever- used a game with more satisfying, intuitive controls?
There's more than enough room for both platforms, provided developers & publishers are like minded D:
Originally Posted by giantegg Whenever there is an argument or discussion about PC versus console gaming, I love to read the difference in the way an obvious console gamer expresses themselves, compared to an obvious PC gamer.
PC gamers make good points, have interesting views and tend to articulate better than console gamers, who pretty much don't have brains.
I'm not just a crappy PC fanboy either, I still play my Wii and xbox, and enjoy it! but clearly, smarter & better informed people use PC's as a primary gaming platform.
I think we'll definitely see a genre distinction emerging. Racing, adventure & platform games are great on consoles, and RTS, FPS games are great on PC.
there's still room for both though, look at RE4 on the wii for example, has anyone -ever- used a game with more satisfying, intuitive controls?
There's more than enough room for both platforms, provided developers & publishers are like minded D:
I don't think it's necessarily a difference in brainpower between PC and console gamers, but there might be a difference of maturity. I feel like console gamers tend to be younger, and the voicechat makes them more likely to whine or argue each other, while communication via PC must be typed out into coherent.
But even playing the same map, the same game, and the same day, you see a huge range of e-egos. Yesterday, I played a WC3 TFT "Battleships" game. I had one game where the other team whooped my ass, and we were able to stay friendly, and talk about some of our cool strategies, and agree on which strategy was the deciding factor. A few hours later, I play the same map, and this time the other team is flaming the crap out of me. I was using a powerful but difficult-to-use ship - it has very low health and no armor, and can't equip any items that improve that, but it has a very powerful melee one-shot attack (which is easily dodged by 2 of the 3 ships with a low enough health that it kills them instantly), ad that I've been playing the game for years, and I'm pretty much an exnd a semi-disable. It's very easy to counter. There is a very inexpensive item that adds enough armor that the melee thing doesn't kill you in one hit, so all you need to do is buy that item. He never did. I killed him like a dozen times in a row. He even had the same ship as me, but didn't learn the melee one-shot attack ability, because it was "too noob". Neverminpert at it, and I have tons of practice in the quirks of this ship, learning how to avoid having my weak glass cannon being destroyed on my way in to hit that 1-shot blow. Then he saved up his money for a more expensive ship, that had two long range guided projectile attacks, each of which was powerful enough to kill me in one hit. Of course, by then it was "too little, too late" - but it reminded me that it doesn't matter whether you're playing the newest Xbox title, or a mod map to a 7 year old PC game - there will always be hypocritical idiots who call you a "noob" just because they don't understand simple counters, and they don't know how to use certain aspects of the game as well as you do.
I don't think it's necessarily a difference in brainpower between PC and console gamers, but there might be a difference of maturity. I feel like console gamers tend to be younger, and the voicechat makes them more likely to whine or argue each other, while communication via PC must be typed out into coherent.
point well made. I agree.
Having read your story, and despite my previous statement, I'll admit that WC3 is a game I tend to rage at :3 some people are just too friggen good at it. >=(
Originally Posted by wiak dying? more like consoles destroys the pc gaming industry
why?, just look at wolfenstein, its more made for crappy consoles than the PC, many other games also goes after consoles instead of the superior graphics technology and performance of PCs
a Radeon HD 4870 class graphics card is 2 times faster than Radeon HD 2900 (Xbox 360) and faster than Geforce 7800 (Playstation 3)
so consoles are outdated, PCs for the WIN!
Totally agree with you.
But there is another view on this................................
A majority of hardware manufacturers look at the PC based gaming industry as a means to an end.
If everyone stuck to 'cough' consoles, then hardware manufacturers would slow down R&D and production of GFX cards etc.
Without 1, the other would suffer.
I am not a console fan, I think they are just for teenagers that have nothing better to do, PC's (though upgrades can be expensive and frustrating) are the ideal system for games, if it ain't fast enough to run a game, spend some money.
I started play Quake many moons ago (dial-up 3.2p per min), I have seen companies come and go, games come and go, but currently, I am worried that the PC gaming industry will start to fade, moving over to consoles, as it is cheaper and easier to develop a game for the console market.
The point is not is PC gaming dying, but is gaming overall dying? The signs are there - more interest in retro gaming through 360 Live and PS3 Arcade, as well as GOG.com and 5 million DOSBox downloads for PC.
Then we have the fact that PS2 has pretty much kept up with the PS3 in sales - at least until this Summer.
Then we have the fact that most non-shooter genres are disappearing as shooters are the biggest section of the market, and is the only part of the market that can make a big enough profit for the publishers.
Then we have the fact that the 360 and PS3 are getting on for six years old, with no sign of new consoles. No new console will appear within 2 years, so that will make them 7-8 years old! The reason for this is that generally games for a new consopl are 25% higher than the previous one. With the cost of bringing games to market, there is no profit in new machines!
As more and more of the AAA mainstream market becomes shooter after shooter after shooter, the market overall will decline faster and faster.
I think we are looking at gaming overall being a bit player, with everything being online because retailers don't carry games any more, and fewer and fewer gamers knowing where to go to get games and so losing interest and moving onto other interests.
Originally Posted by uk_john The point is not is PC gaming dying, but is gaming overall dying?
Interesting point and I think you may be onto something. I personally blame the Wii for the rot that we are seeing. The Wii had people out buying them in their droves, yet months later people started to realise that there are hardly any games worth buying and there are even fewer on the horizon. £180 down the drain isn't going to do much for a gamer's enthusiasm.
Next we have the 360, which is by far the most poorly constructed, unreliable piece of consumer electronics equipment made in recent times and it has very little besides over-rated shooters and driving games. When you are not playing Hide & Seek of War 1 or 2 or one of the Forza's you are waiting for the UPS man to collect your console again.
The PS3 was late to the party, it was better made than the 360, quieter and far more reliable, but harder to develop for, so it bore the brunt of the latest crop of lazy developers who either didn't bother to port the games or did a terrible job of it. The 1st-party titles and exclusives are great, but they are few and far between and the other games are often buggy and missing textures.
The PC gets abused by publishers like Activision, who release lazy ports, charge more than the going rate and have killed off any hope of a 2nd hand market, so people essentially pay full price to "rent" their games - a console game you can sell on and get some money back if you've finished it or it doesn't live up to expectations - a PC game is a one-shot deal, you pay £25 (or £35 if its Activision) and that's it, if it turns out to be rubbish or it has game-ending bugs that are never patched, hard luck. PC gamers get a bad deal from the publishers, but the publishers complain that PC gamers are just pirating them anyway.
The corporate greed shown by many of these publishers also means that new and interesting titles are thrown to the side in favour of guaranteed sellers that just re-hash the same old cr**...with maybe a bit of shock-factor thrown in to differentiate it from the game that came before...like MW2.
The older games bring back memories of happier times when games were new and original. They may look a bit dated now, but they are often simple, honest fun.
As a gamer I feel rather demoralised and I don't think I'm alone.
Computer game companies are increasingly turning to cartridge games for their income, since that's where the money lies. Cartridges are impossible to pirate casually, and this is a significant factor in the company's decision. Without any piracy whatsoever, computer games would sell two to three times as many copies each, bringing their overall sales up into the range of cartridge games. Game companies would put a lot more emphasis on computer games and correspondingly less on cartridges.
--- Sandy Petersen, Eye of the Monitor, Dragon Magazine issue 200, December 1993
So PC gaming has been "dying" for quite some time with software piracy presumably being a slothful serial killer who keeps falling asleep on the job.
What is fair to say is that console products have been getting a huge amount of advertising (and subsequent mindshare) along with an increasing share of store shelfspace. And the reason is simple - tighter controls on pricing mean better margins. Which makes them far worse value for consumers, who in the end have to pay for that advertising.
PC games on the other hand have been available at increasingly heavy discounts (first by mail order then online suppliers) to the extent that only the seriously cash-careless would consider buying from a high-street gaming store. Hence less advertising and more reliance on good reviews and word of mouth.
This leads to the situation where the console environment almost encourages mediocrity (since it is the flashy ad campaigns that are the main sales drivers, rather than good game design - though the latter certainly helps) while the PC environment is less tolerant of dross - arguably a good situation for PC gamers.
Without the licensing controls and restrictions imposed by console manufacturers, PC games can be sold directly to end consumers, meaning lower prices and better value - another plus. Digital distribution has the potential to greatly improve this, as long as gamers avoid rip-off vendors who charge the same (or even higher) prices rather than passing on the significant savings that can be made.
Add to this the sometimes significant expansion to gameplay that modding can offer on PC games - extra value for PC gamers but a likely downside for an industry that relies on selling the "next big thing".
It could also be argued that there are too many PC games being released currently, so having companies leave for the "greener fields" of the console market may be good for those who remain. Conversely, more console games may result in poorer sales for newer titles - possibly even leading to "console games are dying" articles in a couple of years' time.
There are downsides to PC gaming certainly - the increasing complexity of the hardware and software environment (for example with Dragon Age, users have not only reported graphics card/driver issues but also PhysX problems, often due to older versions being present on their system). DRM is an increasing problem, whether the more immediate problems caused by buggy CD/DVD filter drivers or the longer term longevity issues posed by online activation (and, as Joe noted, the unspoken intention by games publishers of killing off the legal and legitimate second hand market).
Software piracy is best ignored by the industry as those who don't pay shouldn't have a say (polite requests for financial support are a reasonable step and likely more effective than DRM). Yet too many publishers are giving this group attention at the expense of their legitimate customers. I've not pirated games since my teen years (when I simply couldn't afford any) but I am boycotting an increasing number of games (and distribution systems) because I have no reason to believe they will still be working in 5 years' time, let alone the 20-30 years I expect my games purchases to last.
The problem in PC gaming is the developer's reluctance to actually make PC games.
Couple that with increasing costs, the economic downturn and pretty much the fact that consoles seem more of a profitable area(short term at least), you got yourself a steaming kettle.
Bummer! How the hell am I going to test out my high end hardware without PC games? Besides what is the point of high end GPU's if there are no games to make use of them? Seems like GPU developer's and manufacturer's should be all over a move to encourage PC games.
I think there is another aspect to this is cross platform development is cheaper than making different versions tailored to each platform. If you can make one game for the lowest performing platform and then port it to the other two, you save a pile in development cost. The problem with this approach from the consumer's standpoint is that all the platforms are tied to the performance of the least of them.
PC gaming is not dying, nor is console gaming really ascendant, they are both just being homogenized into one standard "gaming" product to cut development costs and sell more games.
Originally Posted by dreamhunk it also why console game devs go bankuprt do you want me to prove more I have a ton links I could post on the subject
Most game developers who have a budget over a certain size will go bankrupt if their game fails. It's a very risky business, the games industry and the finances have to be balanced carefully.
Jesus; most developers total go bankrupt or are forced to radically downscale/close within a few years. Raising the money just to rent office space and pay for the salaries of all your programmers and designers, plus licensing fees? That's a colossal amount of money when you bear in mind most AAA games take 2- 4 years to make. If the game isn't massive you'll just not recoup those costs and fold straight away.
Implying that rapid bankruptcy in game development is something which applies only (or even mainly) to console developers seems a bit of a blind alley.
you have spend what is 200million on marketing just to make your game sell that is huge problem
you know you tell your dumb on the matter
Why is it dumb to spend $200 million on marketing for a game when the links posted above prove that it's more important to have a strong visible marketing campaign than it is to have high scores or high quality? Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead 2, World of Warcraft, Borderlands, Dragon Age, Batman - all great games of decent quality and every single one of them will have spent multiple millions on marketing.
Of course we're going to see console developers go out of business. It's a recession and costs are rising as part of the polygon wars, which is making life harder for devs on all platforms. Luxury industries are always heavily affected by changes in the global economy. We'll probably hear about more console devs going bust rather than PC devs too, but that doesn't prove anything other than that console or multiplatform devs are likely larger and more relevant to the vast majority of people.
And, yes, when I say vast majority of people I mean it. PC gamers may have the largest install base, but not the largest number of users or customers. Example; my parents own three PCs and no consoles. My brother has a gaming laptop I picked out for him so he could game on his PC, but still plays on his Xbox 360 most the time. Consoles are simply more relevant to more people than niche PC-only developers, so will get reported on more.
It's also important to define your terms here. There are very few PC-only developers of note, but I'd be willing to say most people would class companies like Valve or Bioware as PC developers for the most part despite the fact that those companies often consider the Xbox 360 to be their lead platform because of how easy a Xbox 360-PC port is.
I'm struggling to see your over all point here too. Some smaller console developers are going out of business. So what? Some on PC are too. At the end of the day that says very little about the overall state of the market, other than that the market is becoming increasingly competitive thanks to larger developers and publishers.
Two recently released games that would be considered notable by their respective audiences and come from large, established companies; Shattered Horizon on PC and Assassin's Creed on Xbox 360. Which do you think spent more on marketing, which do you think will be more profitable and which do you think most people outside of the bit-tech.net and hardcore gamer audience actually know about?
...You're not answering the whole issue though. That's one actually very small developer, which is a multi-platform developer. I could counter it by pointing to Halo ODST and how it made squillions on the Xbox, but that equally wouldn't prove anything either. Single developers are not the whole picture.
Why are you adamantly refusing to address any of my points in your own words or with consistent masses of data? A handful of internet articles from a large period of time do not equal good research.
I could point to this website, for example, but that doesn't prove that timecubes really exist. http://www.timecube.com/
oichi Wada says trade must prepare for switch to digital distribution and server-based games
Square Enix chief Yoichi Wada is preparing his firm for the demise of physical media and potentially the death of home consoles.
In an exclusive interview with MCV that will be published next week, the CEO of the publisher which now owns Eidos and is famous for its epic disc-based Final Fantasy games said that a dramatic change will come in the next decade offering more opportunity for market growth, but fundamentally transforming the traditional industry.
In ten years time a lot of what we call console games wont exist, he said.
Wada warned that all the distributors and sales firms will suffer a big negative impact from a new era in which interactive entertainment switches from software run on hardware in the home to server-based offerings, game streaming and digital distribution.
He claimed that format-holders including Sony and Microsoft are already prepared for the shift and that third-parties must follow suit.
Comments 126 to 150 of 163
Replybut in single player, if you left the dvd open.. what happens is everyone pirates it day one- if the crackers have to work on it awhile to make it playable, some will just go out and buy the game- so it's increased sales
think the batman game shows where they are headed with it.. put a check into the game that's nothing but a front.. the crackers think they've cracked the game, but another check knows it's running illegit.. it let's the player go to a certain point and then billyshafts their ass
this leads to a broken version being posted.. the saddle poppers are foaming at the mouth and then bam! they get a facefull of sea grogin and run to the store to buy a working copy
I don't know what you just said, but it sounds awesome!
PC gamers make good points, have interesting views and tend to articulate better than console gamers, who pretty much don't have brains.
I'm not just a crappy PC fanboy either, I still play my Wii and xbox, and enjoy it! but clearly, smarter & better informed people use PC's as a primary gaming platform.
I think we'll definitely see a genre distinction emerging. Racing, adventure & platform games are great on consoles, and RTS, FPS games are great on PC.
there's still room for both though, look at RE4 on the wii for example, has anyone -ever- used a game with more satisfying, intuitive controls?
There's more than enough room for both platforms, provided developers & publishers are like minded D:
I don't think it's necessarily a difference in brainpower between PC and console gamers, but there might be a difference of maturity. I feel like console gamers tend to be younger, and the voicechat makes them more likely to whine or argue each other, while communication via PC must be typed out into coherent.
But even playing the same map, the same game, and the same day, you see a huge range of e-egos. Yesterday, I played a WC3 TFT "Battleships" game. I had one game where the other team whooped my ass, and we were able to stay friendly, and talk about some of our cool strategies, and agree on which strategy was the deciding factor. A few hours later, I play the same map, and this time the other team is flaming the crap out of me. I was using a powerful but difficult-to-use ship - it has very low health and no armor, and can't equip any items that improve that, but it has a very powerful melee one-shot attack (which is easily dodged by 2 of the 3 ships with a low enough health that it kills them instantly), ad that I've been playing the game for years, and I'm pretty much an exnd a semi-disable. It's very easy to counter. There is a very inexpensive item that adds enough armor that the melee thing doesn't kill you in one hit, so all you need to do is buy that item. He never did. I killed him like a dozen times in a row. He even had the same ship as me, but didn't learn the melee one-shot attack ability, because it was "too noob". Neverminpert at it, and I have tons of practice in the quirks of this ship, learning how to avoid having my weak glass cannon being destroyed on my way in to hit that 1-shot blow. Then he saved up his money for a more expensive ship, that had two long range guided projectile attacks, each of which was powerful enough to kill me in one hit. Of course, by then it was "too little, too late" - but it reminded me that it doesn't matter whether you're playing the newest Xbox title, or a mod map to a 7 year old PC game - there will always be hypocritical idiots who call you a "noob" just because they don't understand simple counters, and they don't know how to use certain aspects of the game as well as you do.
point well made. I agree.
Having read your story, and despite my previous statement, I'll admit that WC3 is a game I tend to rage at :3 some people are just too friggen good at it. >=(
Totally agree with you.
But there is another view on this................................
A majority of hardware manufacturers look at the PC based gaming industry as a means to an end.
If everyone stuck to 'cough' consoles, then hardware manufacturers would slow down R&D and production of GFX cards etc.
Without 1, the other would suffer.
I am not a console fan, I think they are just for teenagers that have nothing better to do, PC's (though upgrades can be expensive and frustrating) are the ideal system for games, if it ain't fast enough to run a game, spend some money.
I started play Quake many moons ago (dial-up 3.2p per min), I have seen companies come and go, games come and go, but currently, I am worried that the PC gaming industry will start to fade, moving over to consoles, as it is cheaper and easier to develop a game for the console market.
Then we have the fact that PS2 has pretty much kept up with the PS3 in sales - at least until this Summer.
Then we have the fact that most non-shooter genres are disappearing as shooters are the biggest section of the market, and is the only part of the market that can make a big enough profit for the publishers.
Then we have the fact that the 360 and PS3 are getting on for six years old, with no sign of new consoles. No new console will appear within 2 years, so that will make them 7-8 years old! The reason for this is that generally games for a new consopl are 25% higher than the previous one. With the cost of bringing games to market, there is no profit in new machines!
As more and more of the AAA mainstream market becomes shooter after shooter after shooter, the market overall will decline faster and faster.
I think we are looking at gaming overall being a bit player, with everything being online because retailers don't carry games any more, and fewer and fewer gamers knowing where to go to get games and so losing interest and moving onto other interests.
Interesting point and I think you may be onto something. I personally blame the Wii for the rot that we are seeing. The Wii had people out buying them in their droves, yet months later people started to realise that there are hardly any games worth buying and there are even fewer on the horizon. £180 down the drain isn't going to do much for a gamer's enthusiasm.
Next we have the 360, which is by far the most poorly constructed, unreliable piece of consumer electronics equipment made in recent times and it has very little besides over-rated shooters and driving games. When you are not playing Hide & Seek of War 1 or 2 or one of the Forza's you are waiting for the UPS man to collect your console again.
The PS3 was late to the party, it was better made than the 360, quieter and far more reliable, but harder to develop for, so it bore the brunt of the latest crop of lazy developers who either didn't bother to port the games or did a terrible job of it. The 1st-party titles and exclusives are great, but they are few and far between and the other games are often buggy and missing textures.
The PC gets abused by publishers like Activision, who release lazy ports, charge more than the going rate and have killed off any hope of a 2nd hand market, so people essentially pay full price to "rent" their games - a console game you can sell on and get some money back if you've finished it or it doesn't live up to expectations - a PC game is a one-shot deal, you pay £25 (or £35 if its Activision) and that's it, if it turns out to be rubbish or it has game-ending bugs that are never patched, hard luck. PC gamers get a bad deal from the publishers, but the publishers complain that PC gamers are just pirating them anyway.
The corporate greed shown by many of these publishers also means that new and interesting titles are thrown to the side in favour of guaranteed sellers that just re-hash the same old cr**...with maybe a bit of shock-factor thrown in to differentiate it from the game that came before...like MW2.
The older games bring back memories of happier times when games were new and original. They may look a bit dated now, but they are often simple, honest fun.
As a gamer I feel rather demoralised and I don't think I'm alone.
What is fair to say is that console products have been getting a huge amount of advertising (and subsequent mindshare) along with an increasing share of store shelfspace. And the reason is simple - tighter controls on pricing mean better margins. Which makes them far worse value for consumers, who in the end have to pay for that advertising.
PC games on the other hand have been available at increasingly heavy discounts (first by mail order then online suppliers) to the extent that only the seriously cash-careless would consider buying from a high-street gaming store. Hence less advertising and more reliance on good reviews and word of mouth.
This leads to the situation where the console environment almost encourages mediocrity (since it is the flashy ad campaigns that are the main sales drivers, rather than good game design - though the latter certainly helps) while the PC environment is less tolerant of dross - arguably a good situation for PC gamers.
Without the licensing controls and restrictions imposed by console manufacturers, PC games can be sold directly to end consumers, meaning lower prices and better value - another plus. Digital distribution has the potential to greatly improve this, as long as gamers avoid rip-off vendors who charge the same (or even higher) prices rather than passing on the significant savings that can be made.
Add to this the sometimes significant expansion to gameplay that modding can offer on PC games - extra value for PC gamers but a likely downside for an industry that relies on selling the "next big thing".
It could also be argued that there are too many PC games being released currently, so having companies leave for the "greener fields" of the console market may be good for those who remain. Conversely, more console games may result in poorer sales for newer titles - possibly even leading to "console games are dying" articles in a couple of years' time.
There are downsides to PC gaming certainly - the increasing complexity of the hardware and software environment (for example with Dragon Age, users have not only reported graphics card/driver issues but also PhysX problems, often due to older versions being present on their system). DRM is an increasing problem, whether the more immediate problems caused by buggy CD/DVD filter drivers or the longer term longevity issues posed by online activation (and, as Joe noted, the unspoken intention by games publishers of killing off the legal and legitimate second hand market).
Software piracy is best ignored by the industry as those who don't pay shouldn't have a say (polite requests for financial support are a reasonable step and likely more effective than DRM). Yet too many publishers are giving this group attention at the expense of their legitimate customers. I've not pirated games since my teen years (when I simply couldn't afford any) but I am boycotting an increasing number of games (and distribution systems) because I have no reason to believe they will still be working in 5 years' time, let alone the 20-30 years I expect my games purchases to last.
Couple that with increasing costs, the economic downturn and pretty much the fact that consoles seem more of a profitable area(short term at least), you got yourself a steaming kettle.
PC gaming is not dying, nor is console gaming really ascendant, they are both just being homogenized into one standard "gaming" product to cut development costs and sell more games.
great tube video
you really want to know why MW2 did so well on consoles it's called marketing
http://www.vgarabia.com/2009/1...are-2-cost-revealed/
No ****. That's true for all games.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/marketing-influences-game-revenue-three-times-more-than-high-scores
yea them high production costs on consoles are sure saving them consoles game devs
Most game developers who have a budget over a certain size will go bankrupt if their game fails. It's a very risky business, the games industry and the finances have to be balanced carefully.
Jesus; most developers total go bankrupt or are forced to radically downscale/close within a few years. Raising the money just to rent office space and pay for the salaries of all your programmers and designers, plus licensing fees? That's a colossal amount of money when you bear in mind most AAA games take 2- 4 years to make. If the game isn't massive you'll just not recoup those costs and fold straight away.
Implying that rapid bankruptcy in game development is something which applies only (or even mainly) to console developers seems a bit of a blind alley.
you want to know what EA thinks of console gaming
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/weak-report-job-cuts-hit-ea-shares-2009-11-10
http://video.foxbusiness.com/11298736/ea-ceo-gearing-up-for-holiday-sales/?category_id=1292d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046
http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/103/1036254p1.html
you have spend what is 200million on marketing just to make your game sell that is huge problem
you know you tell your dumb on the matter
Eh?
Why is it dumb to spend $200 million on marketing for a game when the links posted above prove that it's more important to have a strong visible marketing campaign than it is to have high scores or high quality? Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead 2, World of Warcraft, Borderlands, Dragon Age, Batman - all great games of decent quality and every single one of them will have spent multiple millions on marketing.
Of course we're going to see console developers go out of business. It's a recession and costs are rising as part of the polygon wars, which is making life harder for devs on all platforms. Luxury industries are always heavily affected by changes in the global economy. We'll probably hear about more console devs going bust rather than PC devs too, but that doesn't prove anything other than that console or multiplatform devs are likely larger and more relevant to the vast majority of people.
And, yes, when I say vast majority of people I mean it. PC gamers may have the largest install base, but not the largest number of users or customers. Example; my parents own three PCs and no consoles. My brother has a gaming laptop I picked out for him so he could game on his PC, but still plays on his Xbox 360 most the time. Consoles are simply more relevant to more people than niche PC-only developers, so will get reported on more.
It's also important to define your terms here. There are very few PC-only developers of note, but I'd be willing to say most people would class companies like Valve or Bioware as PC developers for the most part despite the fact that those companies often consider the Xbox 360 to be their lead platform because of how easy a Xbox 360-PC port is.
I'm struggling to see your over all point here too. Some smaller console developers are going out of business. So what? Some on PC are too. At the end of the day that says very little about the overall state of the market, other than that the market is becoming increasingly competitive thanks to larger developers and publishers.
Two recently released games that would be considered notable by their respective audiences and come from large, established companies; Shattered Horizon on PC and Assassin's Creed on Xbox 360. Which do you think spent more on marketing, which do you think will be more profitable and which do you think most people outside of the bit-tech.net and hardcore gamer audience actually know about?
http://www.edge-online.com/news/playlogic-reports-increased-losses
more on the subject as consoles are on a decline
here is another great link
http://gamerlimit.com/2009/11/limitcast-episode-25-the-survivability-of-pc-gaming/#comment-26432
it's raidio interview
...You're not answering the whole issue though. That's one actually very small developer, which is a multi-platform developer. I could counter it by pointing to Halo ODST and how it made squillions on the Xbox, but that equally wouldn't prove anything either. Single developers are not the whole picture.
Why are you adamantly refusing to address any of my points in your own words or with consistent masses of data? A handful of internet articles from a large period of time do not equal good research.
I could point to this website, for example, but that doesn't prove that timecubes really exist.
http://www.timecube.com/
http://www.edge-online.com/news/playlogic-reports-loss-of-33-million
http://www.vg247.com/2009/09/04/splatterhouse-dev-bottlerocket-shuts-its-doors/
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3174841
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/video-game-makers-seeing-red/
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/483/the-developer-graveyard
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090506005551&newsLang=en
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/36665/Square-Enix-Consoles-set-for-extinction
oichi Wada says trade must prepare for switch to digital distribution and server-based games
Square Enix chief Yoichi Wada is preparing his firm for the demise of physical media and potentially the death of home consoles.
In an exclusive interview with MCV that will be published next week, the CEO of the publisher which now owns Eidos and is famous for its epic disc-based Final Fantasy games said that a dramatic change will come in the next decade offering more opportunity for market growth, but fundamentally transforming the traditional industry.
In ten years time a lot of what we call console games wont exist, he said.
Wada warned that all the distributors and sales firms will suffer a big negative impact from a new era in which interactive entertainment switches from software run on hardware in the home to server-based offerings, game streaming and digital distribution.
He claimed that format-holders including Sony and Microsoft are already prepared for the shift and that third-parties must follow suit.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
...
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums