373 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

If they release a Toolset, they do have to support it itself, yes. But as for mods themselves, even in DAO, you were "advised to use them at your own risk". Bioware technical support would only tell you to remove all mods if you were having an issue or problem, but they did not otherwise support or deal with problems in the mods themselves (or created by them); for that you usually had to go to the author's forum at DA-Nexus (if there was one). 

 

Absolutely any mods that are produced is use at your own risk. I was stating that if the modkit itself were produce Bioware would have to support it. That may or may not require additional resources, but more likely it would.

[Fast Jimmy]

If they release a Toolset, they do have to support it itself, yes. But as for mods themselves, even in DAO, you were "advised to use them at your own risk". Bioware technical support would only tell you to remove all mods if you were having an issue or problem, but they did not otherwise support or deal with problems in the mods themselves (or created by them); for that you usually had to go to the author's forum at DA-Nexus (if there was one). 

 

I've said for a while now that it would be interesting to see what would have happened if Bioware had taken a different route with the Neverwinter Nights games. Whereby, instead of selling a game with a bit of an underwhelming main campaign, but the modkit as the main attraction, whereby users would attract more customers by generating content and Bioware would make more money by selling "premium modules" (which were proto-DLC) if they, instead, set up a system that let the modders effectively charge for mods if they so chose and where Bioware takes a cut.

 

Similar to the way the Apple App Store works, you could go through a certification process where mods that are going to be charged for have to meet certain criteria of quality and stability, then let the modder set their own price and let fan feedback determine market demand. Bioware could even market/advertise successful mods to help raise awareness (and also, of course, increase their own revenue as well). Modders that have buggy products or don't complete promised updates will have negative reviews and are less likely to earn money. Modders who are inexperienced or enjoy doing mods for a hobby can charge nothing, letting the player enjoy the product with no upfront cost. There could even be "lite" versions of mods, where you can only experience a portion of the content or a small variation of the full feature and then offer a "full version" right alongside it, so people can demo mods before putting their money down.

 

This could lead to more focused collaborations as well, as people could see mods being less of a hobby and more of a way to earn money, with groups banding together for the most polished and competitive content, possibly even companies forming to create services.

 

 

I feel like that would have been a better model than giving everyone a toolset without a truly solid base campaign (again, like NWN) and then hoping the fans will do enough work to attract other fans without any financial incentive for doing so. 

[Realmzmaster]

The problem with your suggestion is that Bioware/EA are left on the hook if the modder chooses not to respond. The gamer is going to complain to EA/Bioware. So how is EA/Bioware to appease the gamer? For example the creator of Flappy Bird decided to flap away. Luckily Flappy Bird is a free online game, so the only problem is no one gets to play it. 

 

Mods on the other hand are download. So if Bioware/EA sets up a mod store they become responsible for the content. So unless Bioware/EA has the sourc code for the mod it cannot be corrected or updated. Even if Bioware/EA has the code resources have to be allocated to fix it. 

 

I am not saying this event would happen but it bears consideration.

[JCFR]

Modding? Hell yes!

Modding adds so much to games, it can't even be discribed. Like: Look at the popularity fo games with modability.. Skyrim, Oblivion, Neverwinter nights, Half life 2... well therre are even some great Mods for BG and BG2.

 

It might have even rescued DA2 if there were a toolkit or editor.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem with your suggestion is that Bioware/EA are left on the hook if the modder chooses not to respond. The gamer is going to complain to EA/Bioware. So how is EA/Bioware to appease the gamer? For example the creator of Flappy Bird decided to flap away. Luckily Flappy Bird is a free online game, so the only problem is no one gets to play it.

Mods on the other hand are download. So if Bioware/EA sets up a mod store they become responsible for the content. So unless Bioware/EA has the sourc code for the mod it cannot be corrected or updated. Even if Bioware/EA has the code resources have to be allocated to fix it.

I am not saying this event would happen but it bears consideration.

If an iTunes app developer doesn't fix their product, it doesn't result in Apple refunding everyone their money. There are QA processes to make sure Apple isn't putting debunk products out there, but outside of this, any future updates or added content is on the side of the app creator to complete, not Apple.

The same could be said of Google's Play store. Or games created using the Unity engine, for that matter. The one who supplies the tools can do their due diligence to make sure the product being sold is of sound (or, at least, not detrimental) quality, the rest is left up to the creator and the consumer.

And, again... I wouldn't expect this process to exist for free mods, where Bioware sees no financial gain. This would only be for those modders who wish to earn money for their efforts... so their efforts had better be heads above the competition of free modders. If not, then market demand says it probably shouldn't have been charged for in the first place.

[Mirdarion]

I don't know for certain, but I'd be skeptical that this was the case.

 

As for "the advertisement," it's a bit like asking artists to create their music/art/whatever for free because of the "exposure" it gives them.  Few artists are keen on doing this (for good reason).

 

Now that's a little bit out of context here. Using the CryEngine wouldn't be free at all for BioWare/EA, as it isn't owned by them (Crytek is still a free developer). But see it the same way that some artists upload their music (which is being sold in stores) to Youtube for everyone to listen to for free. Even some of the bigger artists (=their publishers) do that, because they know they don't get a bigger marketing platform and a wider audience than Youtube. 

Just say Inquisition became a really big thing while being incredibly impressive in the graphical department (something like another Crysis). What better advertisement could there be for an engine? 

 

 

P.S.: Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to bash BioWare for not including mod support (although saying that I'm not disappointed would be a lie). IMO the true problem lies with Dice, as the developer of the engine. But I am wondering why out of all engines available the Frostbite-engine was chosen. Perhaps there is something like a fairly new (e.g. 3-4 years) unwritten EA rule here, that mod-support is too time consuming and costly to be anywhere close to a priority in which case the Frostbite-engine would be a first choice (no licensing costs). 

Modifié par Mirdarion, 01 avril 2014 - 05:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Now that's a little bit out of context here. Using the CryEngine wouldn't be free at all for BioWare/EA, as it isn't owned by them (Crytek is still a free developer). But see it the same way that some artists upload their music (which is being sold in stores) to Youtube for everyone to listen to for free. Even some of the bigger artists do that, because they know they don't get a bigger marketing platform and a wider audience than Youtube.
Just say Inquisition became a really big thing while being incredibly impressive in the graphical department (something like another Crysis). What better advertisement could there be for an engine?

But it makes infinitely more sense for EA to use an engine they have the rights to, which they can create and develop as they see fit to create the most robust tool possible.

If EA has to spend months working with Crysis to have a new feature added to their engine so they can create their game how they want, Crytek reaps the benefits by having a more robust engine because of it. If, instead, EA does the same process for its own engine that is being deployed across all of its titles, it means they benefit the most.

EA using a single engine that it owns the rights to for all of its titles going forward is the smartest decision I've seen a publisher do in a long time. It reduces their overhead, focuses their resources and improves their bottom lines. Even a free engine like Crytek can't compare with the huge in-house assets the move to Frostbite makes for EA.

The fact that it has the unfortunate side effect of reducing the chance for modkits or even mods in general for a small genre of players (PC being the smallest gaming group out of PS and XBox gamers) is small collateral damage for an otherwise brilliant business move.

[TrixX]

I love how people belittle the amount of PC Gamers in reference to XBone and PS gamers. The truth is there are as many PC Gamers out there, mostly with greater cash, but more picky in their title choice. Sales are lower in the first year to 2 years against Xbone and PS, but over time the gross sales on PC can often outstrip those of the quickly forgotten consoles. Games with modding potential are especially good for this hence the massive success seen by Skyrim as well as many other "mod friendly" games. Just look at the resurgence of Just Cause 2 years after it was released because the players made a multi-player mod for the game that got distributed through steam. Plus you can hardly call DayZ a poor seller, even the Stand-alone version is technically a mod

 

The choice of going to DICE versus Crytek was simple for EA. DICE are part of EA, Crytek are independent and just publish games through EA. No financial sense in using the product of another company when you have your own comparable product. Pity as DICE claim FB2/3 is really hard to mod, but I bet that's a load of crap as has been proven the case with nearly every game with a modding community, support given or not.

I say this after installing close to 200 mods on Dragon Age Origins to improve all aspects of the game. To be honest it's pretty disappointing that some of the mods even had to exist, like the head morph diversity and the myriad of bug fixes that were never fixed. Mainly because after about 3 months of a game release EA usually get's bored and stops the funding of the patches (or in SMS's case just get's rid of the dev studio for WANTING to fix the bugs...).

[Fast Jimmy]

^

In nearly every game that comes out for PC and consoles, PC sales are surpassed by both Playstation and XBox. This was true for Bioware games, both DA:O with a modkit and all the rest without.

It is not being dismissive, it is being realistic. If PC gamers are the smallest demographic and the number of games that realistically offer modkits is a subset of that already small pool, then it is not nearly as huge of a deal to not offer the feature as some would make it out to be.

No one is underestimating PC gamers. It is you who are OVER estimating them.

[TurretSyndrome]

Unfortunately, total console sales will always be more than PC sales, forget about being few, we're just outnumbered 4:1 now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In nearly every game that comes out for PC and consoles, PC sales are surpassed by both Playstation and XBox. This was true for Bioware games, both DA:O with a modkit and all the rest without.

It is not being dismissive, it is being realistic. If PC gamers are the smallest demographic and the number of games that realistically offer modkits is a subset of that already small pool, then it is not nearly as huge of a deal to not offer the feature as some would make it out to be.

No one is underestimating PC gamers. It is you who are OVER estimating them.

This is why I keep telling console gamers that they can mod their games.  I want modders to be a larger portion of the overall game market.

[Fast Jimmy]

Unfortunately, total console sales will always be more than PC sales, forget about being few, we're just outnumbered 4:1 now.

But I'm not even talking about total console sales.

Check every Bioware game that was released on PC and consoles. You'll see that the 360 sold more than the PC. That the PS3 sold more than the PC. The only platform Bioware has out a game out on that didn't sell more than the PC was the WiiU for ME3.

So not only do consoles, as a group, sell more than PCs, but EACH INDIVIDUAL CONSOLE sells more games than PCs. And this is far from an exception. Games that are released on both PC and console platforms have been shown to sell more copies on each console platform than on PC itself. The exceptions to this exist, such as Diablo 3 selling more copies on PC than its console port, but that was due to the fact that it was a year delayed.

And, of course, PC exclusive games (Day-Z was mentioned a few posts ago) are a silly point to make, since... well, since they only come out on PC. That's like me saying arcade machines sell more than consoles because Golden Tee is only an arcade game (which, actually I don't believe is the case anymore, but what-have-you).

Now... each individual platform may not outpace PC sales for DA:I, simply because console sales will be split four ways instead of just two. But the number of games doing this - a 360, XB1, PS3, PS4 and PC split - are few. By the time summer 2015 rolls around, the market will be dominated by all next-gen titles and the slant will go right back to each platform individually outselling PC.

[Fast Jimmy]

This is why I keep telling console gamers that they can mod their games. I want modders to be a larger portion of the overall game market.

I'm sure you'll find the number of people who would mod at the risk of voiding their warranty or losing out on their ability to use any online services (XBox Live and the PSN look down on modifications to software VERY much, as they see it as a gateway into pirated games) just for the chance to have a different game style. Not to mention that the installation of mods for consoles isn't exactly the easiest process in the world for a system without a keyboard or mouse - I wound up installing some mods for FO3 that were fairly straightforward but likely involved steps that would have the more casual player running for the hills.

Not to mention console modding is really a very limited endeavor. While some communities exist and are vibrant, they often take months, if not years, to get anywhere near the level of the PC modders, especially if the PC groups have a modkit.


Which brings me back to the monetization of mods - if a company had released a modkit and allowed modders to charge, the developer could then bundle some of the more popular mods as a "mod DLC" that would go through proper MS and Sony certification processes and be okay for console players to purchase. That way, the liability console manufacturers face of having rogue, untested mods is drastically reduced, the developer is able to essentially open the flood gates of money-making mods not just to PC players, but the much larger console market, the modders themselves can also earn more money, possibly legitimizing themselves into a real profession of sorts and, of course, console gamers get mods themselves.

That, to me, seems like the most positive solution for everyone. The company makes real, demonstrable money off of offering the mod kit, modders are compensated (if they so choose), resulting in higher expectations )and hopefully execution) of quality on the fan-made content front, console manufacturers are happy that the mods being distributed are not going to break the machines they issue warranties out for (not to mention adding some change in their own pocket) and games get more choices on how they want to game. That's a win-win.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm sure you'll find the number of people who would mod at the risk of voiding their warranty or losing out on their ability to use any online services (XBox Live and the PSN look down on modifications to software VERY much, as they see it as a gateway into pirated games) just for the chance to have a different game style. Not to mention that the installation of mods for consoles isn't exactly the easiest process in the world for a system without a keyboard or mouse - I wound up installing some mods for FO3 that were fairly straightforward but likely involved steps that would have the more casual player running for the hills.

Not to mention console modding is really a very limited endeavor. While some communities exist and are vibrant, they often take months, if not years, to get anywhere near the level of the PC modders, especially if the PC groups have a modkit.

As more console players some to expect or desire mods, either console manufacturers will come to allow mods more easily, or those users will move away from consoles.

 

It's a long fight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would argue that with the current hardware specs of this generation console players would be able to even have a full modkit. Current graphics cards could render the files and space is definitely not an issue. The only problem is that a generic modder would be limited to the modkit and wouldn't be able to access external tools for modding without doing a bit of PC data transfer.

In terms of implementation and deployment however, this is where the problems would come in. Implementations and deployment would have a problem with the differences of the operating system run times and architecture of these specialized systems. Basically if they really wanted a mod kit for consoles they would but with the different issues that come into play. Does not seem worth it

Not to mention the console manufacturers are just flat out against it.

Bethesda has, reportedly, been trying to fight the fight of allowing console mods (developed on the PC of course) to be easily distributed and used, but MS and Sony apparently stood firm against the idea.

Which is easy to sneer at, but I think they are simply trying to keep the console platform's greatest strength - stability across any game that is sold on the system - intact and easy to maintain. Because it would not just be Bioware or CD Projekt or Bethesda, nor would it inherently be just modkits... it could open the doorway for all sorts of non-standard digital content that MS and Sony would each have to work to monitor at no extra revenue for them. Unless, of course, they could charge the developers for distributing, monitoring and maintaining such content... which would mean that it would cost the devs more to have the option... which put further roadblocks to modkits appearing in games, not less.

And, again... this could all possibly be sustained if mods generated revenue, where everyone wouldn't have to work for free - developers, publishers, manufactuers, distributors and, of course, modders themselves - and suddenly you have a model where every developer is trying to push a game out with it, just like so many are pushing multiplayer functions today.

[Realmzmaster]

The assumption being made is that enough gamers would pay for the mods. Also it could encourage laziness in the developers. Bethesda already seems to be allowing modders to fix their product. I would not  wish to encourage that kind of behavior. Also if two modders make basically the same mod, but one charges for it through the online store and the other gives it away for free at various sites you know which one will be downloaded more. If the gamer can get the same functionality for no cost that is what they will do. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Now that's a little bit out of context here. Using the CryEngine wouldn't be free at all for BioWare/EA, as it isn't owned by them (Crytek is still a free developer). But see it the same way that some artists upload their music (which is being sold in stores) to Youtube for everyone to listen to for free. Even some of the bigger artists (=their publishers) do that, because they know they don't get a bigger marketing platform and a wider audience than Youtube. 
Just say Inquisition became a really big thing while being incredibly impressive in the graphical department (something like another Crysis). What better advertisement could there be for an engine?

 

I don't think the advertising analogy works.  First, the youtube link is likely monetized in some way, but you're dealing with such a large scale audience with music, compared to potential developers looking to develop a new game with one of the latest 3D engines.  Who would we be advertising to that isn't already aware of CryEngine?

 

P.S.: Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to bash BioWare for not including mod support (although saying that I'm not disappointed would be a lie). IMO the true problem lies with Dice, as the developer of the engine. But I am wondering why out of all engines available the Frostbite-engine was chosen. Perhaps there is something like a fairly new (e.g. 3-4 years) unwritten EA rule here, that mod-support is too time consuming and costly to be anywhere close to a priority in which case the Frostbite-engine would be a first choice (no licensing costs).

 
As far as EA is concerned, Frostbite is free (there's likely bookkeeping stuff to quantify the Frostbite dev's team, but that's all internal) to license to its internal studios.

 

The modular nature of Frostbite also means that, since we're effectively "all on the same team" here, that we collaborate more.  If we come up with a solution to an issue with Frostbite, we share it with all the studios that are using Frostbite so they can use it.  We'd be forfeiting a competitive advantage if we were to do that with, say, Unreal.

Because we aren't working with as divergent of a codebase, it also means that updates Frostbite sends to us can receive support from the Frostbite team, whereas someone like Epic is going to be disinclined to provide support for any local changes we have made for our own purposes.  Especially if they are making games of their own.  The same will still apply to Crytek.

[Fast Jimmy]

The assumption being made is that enough gamers would pay for the mods. Also it could encourage laziness in the developers. Bethesda already seems to be allowing modders to fix their product. I would not wish to encourage that kind of behavior. Also if two modders make basically the same mod, but one charges for it through the online store and the other gives it away for free at various sites you know which one will be downloaded more. If the gamer can get the same functionality for no cost that is what they will do.

I would contend that if another modder can duplicate your efforts in the time frame of when the most sales/downloads can happen, then maybe the mod was simple enough to not warrant a price tag. Or that the mod that had a price tag was popular enough to cement the amount of sales that would have been the upper threshold of those who would have paid for the mod, while any mods downloaded under the free version were only those who would have not paid in the first place.

Again, I go back to my Apple analogy - if someone sold an app and someone else could immediately copy the design and release it for free, then it would be questionable as to how worthwhile said price tag would be.


In terms of endorsing "laziness" across developers (not a word I'd really like to use, but just to quote you), I'd say this is a risk of any modkit, regardless of if the modkit makes money or not. Besides, given that some games like The Witcher have modkits and don't have a plethora of bugs, while games without modkits such as some Rockstar games like GTA or Red Dead Redemption. I think the risk of swaths of bugs stems more from a large, open world rather than the presence of the modkit, but that's an untenable argument to make. Suffice to say, I think the risk of buggier base games might be a worthwhile price tag to mods being gradually phased out over more and more titles as time goes on.

[Realmzmaster]

Another point is that paying for mods adds to the price of the game (which is a decision the consumer has to make). If the mod adds quests or is like the Advanced Tactics mod I can see that some gamers may pay for it. If the mod just fixes errors I cannot see charging for it. Bug fixes are the responsibility of the developer.

So I can only assume that you are talking about mods that do more than fix a error and that adds utility to the game. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Another point is that paying for mods adds to the price of the game (which is a decision the consumer has to make). If the mod adds quests or is like the Advanced Tactics mod I can see that some gamers may pay for it. If the mod just fixes errors I cannot see charging for it. Bug fixes are the responsibility of the developer.
So I can only assume that you are talking about mods that do more than fix a error and that adds utility to the game.

That is a good point, one I hadn't given enough thought to. If a developer doesn't decide to release a patch to fix known bugs and a modder does, would the market abide charging for it? Would the modder be due some type of recompense from the devs share if they gave it away for free?

Hmmmm. I'll have to consider this further. And; of course, it would also depend on the size of the bug/error and how effective the fix was.

[TrixX]

Go check out the Nexus site for Dragon Age Origins. The list of bug fix mods is long. The list of fixed bugs exponentially longer.

 

BTW thanks for butchering the context of the DayZ reference. It was referencing mods, not platform specific sales so altering it's context to suit your argument was rather poor form. 1.7 million in sales does highlight that the PC platform isn't as dead as a lot of people think. Not to mention a lot of the time when multi-platform games are concerned the ports are down arse-backwards, i.e. the games are developed with high detail assets on the PC, then reduced in detail and quality until they are at a viable point for the console platform (usually lead being X360, now PS4/XBOne) with the PC then being an upscale port of the Console game. PC specific UI's and Options are usually done late in the day and often poorly executed due to time/budget constraints and a massive lack of care due to it not being a massive market. Thing is how many of those sales would have been transferred or even doubled over to PC if the quality of the PC game matched that of the console?

 

There are more PC gamers out there in total than console gamers. They are often people who have consoles too, but if a game is great on a console and half-assed on the PC, they'll buy the console version. Personally I'm a PC gamer as I can't stand the interface of consoles normally, plus I can't mod or fix problems I encounter, which on a PC I can do.

 

As for paid mods, this is a good and bad idea. Some mods are indeed worth a buck or two (Dragon Age Redesigned for instance has hundreds of hours of work put into it), yet others wouldn't deserve it. It  reminds me of when a bunch of Russian modders made a large mod for an old game and tried to charge for it. They were rude and arrogant about it, then eventually sold the idea to the publisher of the game and released the mod as a standalone version of the game. The sales of it tanked as the reputation of the modders involved were known by most of the community already, not to mention they refused to release patch fixes after claiming they weren't getting paid. That's the dangerous part of getting money involved with modding, for the most part modders do it because they want to improve the game they like, the ones doing it for fame and recognition generally don't get it

[Fast Jimmy]

Go check out the Nexus site for Dragon Age Origins. The list of bug fix mods is long. The list of fixed bugs exponentially longer.

BTW thanks for butchering the context of the DayZ reference. It was referencing mods, not platform specific sales so altering it's context to suit your argument was rather poor form. 1.7 million in sales does highlight that the PC platform isn't as dead as a lot of people think. Not to mention a lot of the time when multi-platform games are concerned the ports are down arse-backwards, i.e. the games are developed with high detail assets on the PC, then reduced in detail and quality until they are at a viable point for the console platform (usually lead being X360, now PS4/XBOne) with the PC then being an upscale port of the Console game. PC specific UI's and Options are usually done late in the day and often poorly executed due to time/budget constraints and a massive lack of care due to it not being a massive market. Thing is how many of those sales would have been transferred or even doubled over to PC if the quality of the PC game matched that of the console?

Very few. Cross platform purchases happen, but in the thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands, let alone millions. And I never said PC gaming was dead. Only that it is a smaller group than consoles, not only as a whole (where console dominates PC in terms of numbers) but also juxtaposed against individual platforms.

There are more PC gamers out there in total than console gamers. They are often people who have consoles too, but if a game is great on a console and half-assed on the PC, they'll buy the console version. Personally I'm a PC gamer as I can't stand the interface of consoles normally, plus I can't mod or fix problems I encounter, which on a PC I can do.

Unless you are trying to make the case that everyone who owns a PC is a PC gamer, I have no idea where you are getting this impression from.

For games that are cross platform (console and PC), consoles outsell PC. For standalone PC games, there are next to no titles that can compete with the biggest sellers of the highest selling console games.

If sales are lower on PC than on consoles in nearly every method of slicing it, then how can you say there are more PC gamers than console?

As for paid mods, this is a good and bad idea. Some mods are indeed worth a buck or two (Dragon Age Redesigned for instance has hundreds of hours of work put into it), yet others wouldn't deserve it. It reminds me of when a bunch of Russian modders made a large mod for an old game and tried to charge for it. They were rude and arrogant about it, then eventually sold the idea to the publisher of the game and released the mod as a standalone version of the game. The sales of it tanked as the reputation of the modders involved were known by most of the community already, not to mention they refused to release patch fixes after claiming they weren't getting paid. That's the dangerous part of getting money involved with modding, for the most part modders do it because they want to improve the game they like, the ones doing it for fame and recognition generally don't get it

I agree that it would be a thorny path. However, with a game being distributed through Steam or Origin, you could have a built-in way to monitor which mods are installed and if the gamer had paid for it or not, along with a payment system that would keep financial transactions easy and convenient for the gamer, modder and developer.

But I firmly believe you'd let the market determine how such things would play out. People who overcharge for crap, who don't update their content, who are completely unknown and don't have a reputation for quality... all of these things would be reflected in their lack of sales. Modders with excellent content, who work quickly to identify and fix bugs and who have a following after releasing quality mod content would be more successful. Just like with anything in life.

And, of course, the modder would set the price. If they want to do it as a hobby and not charge, they can. If they are brand new and want to test out some mods or try and earn their name, they can do so wih free content and look at paid content later down the road if they so choose. And with the developer getting a small portion of the proceeds, this would not only encourage more games to include modkits, but also work to give the most robust support possible and encourage more to enter the market (contests, tutorials, file structures, etc.). And, of course, it makes bundling mods and porting them to a console a possible reality, seeing as how the developer will be getting some revenue from doing so that will more than offset their console certification costs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Unless you are trying to make the case that everyone who owns a PC is a PC gamer, I have no idea where you are getting this impression from.

This stat typically defines gamer as someone who plays games.  Facebook games would count.

 

And by that measure, there are more PC gamers than there are console gamers.  But console games have a much higher market penetration.  A larger percentage of console gamers overall buy any given console game.  Each PC game reaches far fewer PC gamers.

[Realmzmaster]

Yes there are more PC gamers than console gamers,, but let's look at the specific genre of crpgs. I will use Skyrim as an example. I will use the VGChartz numbers for reference. Skyrim sold roughly 3.40 million on the PC which is impressive. Skyrim sold 7.89 million on the Xbox and 5.4 million on the PS3. Combined total for consoles is 13.29 million or a 4 to 1 ratio. 

 

The number of PC gamers may be vast, but they are not buying the PC crpgs in the numbers that the console users are buying.

 

In fact even with other genres PC users do not make up a significant market compared to consoles.  Let's pick on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.  The number of PC sales is 1.62 million. Xbox sales: 14.19 million PS3 sales: 12.79 million. The disparity is even larger roughly a 13 to 1 ratio.