Consoles hold back the PC? Think again.

I've edited my original post and it now doesn't involve any specific Crysis sales numbers.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="spookykid143"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yes, The Sims are a graphically very undemanding game.

nameless12345

The point is that more people can play it due to undemanding graphics.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

and Halo 3 sales are still less tham Sims :P

Your Link

badtaker

Yes, The Sims are a graphically very undemanding game.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

and Halo 3 sales are still less tham Sims :P

Your Link

badtaker

Yes, The Sims are a graphically very undemanding game.

Alan Wake is said to sell poor on the 360. MS made it 360 exclusive because they needed something to rival PS3's Heavy Rain. It's called competition.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="spookykid143"]Your point?

Arach666

The point is that more people can play it due to undemanding graphics.

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Probably not but they are also not the consoles most valuable trump card like Crysis is to PC. Making that comparison was just dumb.nameless12345

In fact,I have a feeling(well,more than a feeling)that console gamers have already mentioned Crysis(by pushing other games against it,etc)more times than PC gamers actually do.

Crysis has sold over 3 million since its release. And i dont see what crysis or sales has anything to do with consoles holding back PC. Consoles hold back the PC from a technical stand point thats what whole console hold back PC refers to.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I pasted the source (Wikipedia). If they publish outdated sales numbers, that's not my concern.

nameless12345

I don't know the exact Crysis sales, but that was not the point in the first place. The point was, that the game sold less than it could if it were for consoles too.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The point is that more people can play it due to undemanding graphics.

nameless12345

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] Games like STALKER sold over 4 millions and they´re not easy to run games.

GeneralShowzer

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

FGMPR

I thought consoles were the land where the Xbox 360 pirates get Black Ops a week early and that gives us footage like what the TC posted.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/lostplanet2/news.html?sid=6280743

http://www.made2game.com/2010/11/01/enslaved-sales-disappoint/

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2010/07/05/alan-wake-sales-disappointing-in-debut-month-of-may-fails-to-crack-150000-units-sold.htm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/08/slow-sales-of-ufc-2010-pummels-thq-firstquarter-earnings-.html

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/lostplanet2/news.html?sid=6280743

http://www.made2game.com/2010/11/01/enslaved-sales-disappoint/

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2010/07/05/alan-wake-sales-disappointing-in-debut-month-of-may-fails-to-crack-150000-units-sold.htm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/08/slow-sales-of-ufc-2010-pummels-thq-firstquarter-earnings-.html

GeneralShowzer

Poor economy is a *****

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games

I have heard Gears sold poor on the PC.

nameless12345

Gears sold bad because Epic did not support the game.

They released a buggy game and never fixed the problems.

What I got from the OP:

More devs focus on consoles because there's more money there.

Bottom line: Consoles do not hold back the PC.

Alan Wake is said to sell poor on the 360. MS made it 360 exclusive because they needed something to rival PS3's Heavy Rain. It's called competition.

nameless12345

I don't know the exact Crysis sales, but that was not the point in the first place. The point was, that the game sold less than it could if it were for consoles too.

nameless12345

The game couldn't run on consoles, the consoles are not technically advanced enough to run the game. Thats why it was PC only. But don't worry the sequal will be dumbed down to work on consoles :)

Even if some devs would like to develop more for the PC (don't see how better graphics make better games, though), it's the publishers who make the final decisions. And for them consoles mean more money.nameless12345

[QUOTE="FGMPR"][QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"] Probably not but they are also not the consoles most valuable trump card like Crysis is to PC. Making that comparison was just dumb.gamebreakerz__

You: "Probably not but they are also not the consoles most valuable trump card like Crysis is to PC. Making that comparison was just dumb."

From reading that, you were talking about sales when you mentioned Crysis. Or else you mentioning Crysis wouldn't even make any sense at all and would be completely irrelevant to what badtaker said.

So you're talking about sales.. Sales.

Now the general argument we make is that consoles are holding the PC back because of simplified controls (gameplay) and lower grade textures, effects and the life (graphics). Not sure about sound though, since I don't happen to have a 7.1 surround just lying about.

So now you say PC is holding consoles back.. because of sales?

From what I understand you're saying, the title should have been "PC games would have sold better if they were multi." or etc.

My conclusion is that your argument is weak in substance.

So you're talking about sales.. Sales.

Now the general argument we make is that consoles are holding the PC back because of simplified controls (gameplay) and lower grade textures, effects and the life (graphics). Not sure about sound though, since I don't happen to have a 7.1 surround just lying about.

So now you say PC is holding consoles back.. because of sales?

From what I understand you're saying, the title should have been "PC games would have sold better if they were multi." or etc.

My conclusion is that your argument is weak in substance.

ExESGO

There is a lot of talk how consoles are the "bottleneck" preventing the PC from excelling. But is that really so?

The truth is that many graphically demanding PC games do not sell as good on the PC as on the consoles.

For example Crysis cost millions to make but sold a lot less than it could if it were multiplatform. On the other hand, Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 sold more than 8 million copies.

Games like Modern Warfare 2 sell excellent on the consoles too, so it's logical that devs of these games focus more on the console versions.

Furthermore, games like Gears of War were said to sell poor on the PC, which may explain why no more Gears of War games for the PC.

Bottom line is: the consoles don't hold back the PC, but there is more profit on the consoles for a lot of action-oriented games so many devs and publishers rather focus on them.

nameless12345

Consoles hold back PC games in a sense, but ultimately you are correct. Developers go with the side that is going to bring in more money. If that is the console side, it really isn't the fault of the consoles but more so that there is something within the PC industry holding itself back. There's more to it than "which has the more powerful hardware, though?"

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] Games like STALKER sold over 4 millions and they´re not easy to run games.

GeneralShowzer

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

Reach and StarCraft 2 are two totaly different games. One is a FPS with good graphics (for 360 standards), while StarCraft 2 is a RTS. There was always a big market for RTS games on the PC. Besides, it's from Blizzard and Blizzard games sell great on the PC.

It would make more sense to compare Reach sales with Crysis Warhead sales.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

There are always exceptions. The Half-Life and Doom series sold very well on the PC.

nameless12345

Reach and StarCraft 2 are two totaly different games. One is a FPS with good graphics (for 360 standards), while StarCraft 2 is a RTS. There was always a big market for RTS games on the PC. Besides, it's from Blizzard and Blizzard games sell great on the PC.

It would make more sense to compare Reach sales with Crysis Warhead sales.

i also think his sales figures may be off... not entirely sure where he is getting them.

on lol vgchartz halo is sittting at 5.84 mil and SC2 at 2.42 mil.

They arent holding back innovation on pc, thats what really matters. They hold multiplats back graphically and gameplaywise, but multiplats in general besides a few are generic.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Are you aware that Halo : Reach sold 3 millon copies - the same as Starcraft II? There goes your whole argument.markinthedark

Reach and StarCraft 2 are two totaly different games. One is a FPS with good graphics (for 360 standards), while StarCraft 2 is a RTS. There was always a big market for RTS games on the PC. Besides, it's from Blizzard and Blizzard games sell great on the PC.

It would make more sense to compare Reach sales with Crysis Warhead sales.

i also think his sales figures may be off... not entirely sure where he is getting them.

on lol vgchartz halo is sittting at 5.84 mil and SC2 at 2.42 mil.

But Halo doesn't even look that good... also, how is 5 year old hardware *not* a bottleneck for development?rpgs_shall_rule

Uh, you realise that the people who make pc games make sure to make there games runnable on 5 year old hardware right?

Not everyone buys a $600 vid card when it comes out.

They arent holding back innovation on pc, thats what really matters.

edinsftw

I think that too. For example Minecraft is innovative yet graphically inferior.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Reach and StarCraft 2 are two totaly different games. One is a FPS with good graphics (for 360 standards), while StarCraft 2 is a RTS. There was always a big market for RTS games on the PC. Besides, it's from Blizzard and Blizzard games sell great on the PC.

It would make more sense to compare Reach sales with Crysis Warhead sales.

Arach666

i also think his sales figures may be off... not entirely sure where he is getting them.

on lol vgchartz halo is sittting at 5.84 mil and SC2 at 2.42 mil.

true but reach sold 3.3 mil in the US alone in september which was just 9 days. And that didnt even include bundles.

so i think his reach numbers may be a tad off.

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

They arent holding back innovation on pc, thats what really matters.

nameless12345

I think that too. For example Minecraft is innovative yet graphically inferior.

Think of how bad it would be if they held them back that way, consoles would never get any new type of gameplay. 95% of the "innovations" on console were already done on pc earlier.

From what I've red, Reach sold 3 million in the first 24 hours alone, while StarCraft 2 sold 3 million in total untill recently. And StarCraft 2 is considered a success on the PC.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="edinsftw"]

They arent holding back innovation on pc, thats what really matters.

edinsftw

I think that too. For example Minecraft is innovative yet graphically inferior.

Think of how bad it would be if they held them back that way, consoles would never get any new type of gameplay. 95% of the "innovations" on console were already done on pc earlier.

Well that's debatable. The first 3D platformer was on the DOS PC (can't remember the name), but Mario 64 redefined the genre.

From what I've red, Reach sold 3 million in the first 24 hours alone, while StarCraft 2 sold 3 million in total untill recently. And StarCraft 2 is considered a success on the PC.

nameless12345

Franchises like Halo and CoD are outliers comparative to games of similar types on all systems. They aren't exactly useful as a guage for measuring "good" etc sales.

1. When we say hold back we dont usually mean graphics wise . Example bad company 2 compared to BF2. While on its own right BC2 its a good game isnt as deep as BF2. Or Dragon age 2 to DA1. After seeing the trailer and interviews you cant argue they remove elements

2. If you want to talk sales you dont mention Crysis as the top card for Pc. While it sold well ( 1,5 million 3months after was released so by now it should be way more ) you talk any Valve game like Half-life series the orange box ( which outsold console versions combined ), Left4dead or Blizzard games like Starcraft, Wow,Diablo series or Sims or even Guild Wars . Find me an exclusive game franchise on consoles that make as much money as Wow

How many games you think sell more than 2-3 million on consoles?

Also add the fact that game development on consoles is much higher than Pc

Also add in order for a game on consoles to sell well it must be advertise in hell and back ( thus multiplying the cost of the game developement ). Find a console game with a budget of 1million and no advertising that managed to sell 1 million copies. Sins of a solar empire budget was 1million and managed to sell 1million copies

Torchlight its an indie game with a next to nothing budget yet it sold half a million copies

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From what I've red, Reach sold 3 million in the first 24 hours alone, while StarCraft 2 sold 3 million in total untill recently. And StarCraft 2 is considered a success on the PC.

lundy86_4

Franchises like Halo and CoD are outliers comparative to games of similar types on all systems. They aren't exactly useful as a guage for measuring "good" etc sales.

How are they not selling good if they're breaking sales records? Especially Halo Reach, since it's exclusive to the 360 (CoD series are multiplat).

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From what I've red, Reach sold 3 million in the first 24 hours alone, while StarCraft 2 sold 3 million in total untill recently. And StarCraft 2 is considered a success on the PC.

nameless12345

Franchises like Halo and CoD are outliers comparative to games of similar types on all systems. They aren't exactly useful as a guage for measuring "good" etc sales.

How are they not selling good if they're breaking sales records? Especially Halo Reach, since it's exclusive to the 360 (CoD series are multiplat).

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From what I've red, Reach sold 3 million in the first 24 hours alone, while StarCraft 2 sold 3 million in total untill recently. And StarCraft 2 is considered a success on the PC.

nameless12345

Franchises like Halo and CoD are outliers comparative to games of similar types on all systems. They aren't exactly useful as a guage for measuring "good" etc sales.

How are they not selling good if they're breaking sales records? Especially Halo Reach, since it's exclusive to the 360 (CoD series are multiplat).

You are misunderstanding what i'm saying. If we go by sales outliers, that would determine that games selling less are selling poorly (which is what you seem to imply with regards to SCII). 3 million in 3 months is nothing to lift your nose at. It's very rare games attain Halo/CoD like sales. Games attaining 1 million sales can be seen as very successful, as it depends on more than just the amount of sales, such as, making the devs sufficient profit.

I'm a gamer, not a business man. Why should I care about sales; provided that the games I like are released on the platform? If people honestly wanted to be on the platform with the most sales, they would be on the Wii. Oh yeah I forgot, the Wii doesn't count, because most PS3/360 gamers say so. They will boast at PC about their higher sales, but the Wii? Never mind that selling more. Because who would have guessed that the broader your audience; the more you sell?

The sales aren't even comparable because the revenue is different. There is no 1st party wanting a cut of everything on PC, everything goes to the publisher/developer. Development also tends to be cheaper because PC uses industry standard methods, not messing around trying to squeeze something onto none industry standard machines.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Franchises like Halo and CoD are outliers comparative to games of similar types on all systems. They aren't exactly useful as a guage for measuring "good" etc sales.

Mystic-G

How are they not selling good if they're breaking sales records? Especially Halo Reach, since it's exclusive to the 360 (CoD series are multiplat).

Its an rts so about as much as halo wars.

The highlight of console sales are almost always first-person shooters.

The ownage and denial in this thread is funny stuff. Heil68

Elaborate. All you PC fans know to say is that the "evil" consoles are "bottlenecking" the PC, but when it comes to devs saying that there is too much piracy on the PC and that their games don't sell good enough, you just say they are overblowing it. Isn't that true? :D

[QUOTE="Heil68"]The ownage and denial in this thread is funny stuff. nameless12345

Elaborate. All you PC fans know to say is that the "evil" consoles are "bottlenecking" the PC, but when it comes to devs saying that there is too much piracy on the PC and that their games don't sell good enough, you just say they are overblowing it. Isn't that true? :D

For a game to sell well on pc, it either has to have multiplayer, or have depth and complexity for it to not be pirated. Console games generally dont have depth or complexity. The reason pc gamers want it is because, its that depth and complexity that set the game apart from others and make it a different experience.