126 réponses à ce sujet

[Kimberly]

Huh I buy and play games from steam on my computer & I also buy and play games on my PS4. People who are stating consoles are going to be going away, I doubt that will ever happen. A good portion of sales are from consoles, so why would companies stop making games for consoles?

[Lord Surinen]

I have really enjoyed reading user 'cvv' post on the first page in the second link. Spectacular insight.

 

I don't want to buy a console.

 

 

Okay, just to clarify this for you all:

 

When BW announced that DA:I was going to be a PC game for PC gamers (or however they worded it) most of you, unfortunately, got it wrong.

 

You assumed that they meant computer gamers. Yeah... nah.

 

What they really meant was:

 

Politically correct.

Unfortunate but true.

 

I think it would solve a lot of reading problems while browsing forums if they add a slot under your avatar where you can declare yourself 'tumblrite' or 'hell ridden bigot'. I really liked second season of AHS, but watching it over and over becomes tiring.

[xkg]

For the PC players. 15th years aniversary fo The Sims serie is closing in.
You can try The Sims 4 FULL GAME FOR FREE. For 48 hours - that's more than most of the games nowadays takes to finish.

 

So give it a chance, to checks the new CC, burn, drown or ,starve to death your enemy neighbours or do whatever you want.

 

http://www.thesims.c...56&sf35694616=1

 

Go Go, grab it now, and try.

[Bakgrind]

They already do. It's for the best. PC gaming is dying out.

 

I wouldn't say it's dying out but instead say that it is being nudged and forced out for a number of reason. Dragon Age Inquisition is the first game that I purchased in two years for my pc.For me there simply wasn't anything worthwhile for me to purchase for pc.Even Steam didn't have anything I wanted. And during that time I bought myself a PS 3  because I wanted to play Red Dead Redemption and Dragons Dogma and 20 more titles that haven't crossed over to pc. Kind of sad really.

[Fast Jimmy]

And that's why people dismiss the VGChartz numbers. Because we can't tell whether they are meaningful. Therefore, they're effectively worthless.

If we can't have confidence in the numbers, we may as well not have the numbers. We get just as.much information either way.

The hierarchy goes like this:

VGChartz - quick, fast and a little messy but often ballpark (minus digital)
NPD - better, stronger, more industry respected but slower and still not the complete picture (still no digital)
Developer/Publisher results - closest, but also the most actively obscured to make look as good as possible; examples include focusing on units shipped over sold, lumping sales of multiple titles together, omitting results entirely (merely stating a game was released on schedule/without issues and moving on)

And, of course, the fact that the developer/publisher doesn't EXACTLY have the numbers sold, either. As I stated, they know the numbers shipped, the amount of digital keys distributed and the amount of returns on each, but they don't know exact supplies of either (even in the case of EA because Origin is no longer the sole digital distributer of their products).

So there is no clear cut winner. VGChartz is your sign post, NPD is your map and publisher numbers are your celestial navigation... assuming things aren't extremely cloudy. Either way, you'll know the general direction, even if the exact truth gets lost along the way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The hierarchy goes like this:

VGChartz - quick, fast and a little messy but often ballpark (minus digital)
NPD - better, stronger, more industry respected but slower and still not the complete picture (still no digital)
Developer/Publisher results - closest, but also the most actively obscured to make look as good as possible; examples include focusing on units shipped over sold, lumping sales of multiple titles together, omitting results entirely (merely stating a game was released on schedule/without issues and moving on)

And, of course, the fact that the developer/publisher doesn't EXACTLY have the numbers sold, either. As I stated, they know the numbers shipped, the amount of digital keys distributed and the amount of returns on each, but they don't know exact supplies of either (even in the case of EA because Origin is no longer the sole digital distributer of their products).

So there is no clear cut winner. VGChartz is your sign post, NPD is your map and publisher numbers are your celestial navigation... assuming things aren't extremely cloudy. Either way, you'll know the general direction, even if the exact truth gets lost along the way.

My point is that none of them provide us enough information to be useful, so we should just ignore them all.

[HeliusOD]

The numbers speak for themselves:

http://www.vgchartz....ge: inquisition

Anyway, if this page is accurate (some say it's not) 3 million copies sold up till now. (Digital copies not counted) Almost smallest percentage is for PC. I guess in the near future PC-gamers will come last.

More interesting read: http://www.rpgcodex....-failure.96304/

Best part about your post is the fact that as you said "it didn't count digital copies", which would be a large portion of at least pc sales.

[Fast Jimmy]

My point is that none of them provide us enough information to be useful, so we should just ignore them all.

I disagree. If we know each methods strengths and weaknesses and they all appear within an acceptable range of each other, it can paint a rough picture. If the numbers were grossly disparate, that might be one thing. But if they are in agreement, I don't see why reasonable conclusions can't be drawn.

And we hopefully will be receiving the last piece of the puzzle, so to speak, in EA's Q3 2015 quarterly earnings release scheduled for... next week, I believe?

If the earnings report comes out and states that DA:I sold 10 million units, then I agree that all numbers are then suspect. But if it points to the same outcome as what we see from other sources, then I'd say it would paint a clear picture.

[Eelectrica]

I'd say 95% of my game purchases are digital, through Steam.

my last physical purchase was Inquisition, but only because I was a sucker and bought the inquisitors edition with $5 worth if knickknacks which the sold for a lot more than that. My own damn fault really. My next is Witcher 3 CE. Hopefully the extras are not cheap rip offs this time.

[wicked cool]

Please give me an example of a cheap pc that can run dai well with better graphics than a ps4 at best buy. Define cheap

[atlantico]

You mean more conservative than all those guys flipping out because they couldn't click to move on PC?

Both sides have rotten elements.

 

Such simplistic argument. Tsk. 

 

There are no sides. There's no PC demand to click to move, it's a frustration that comes from people playing Dragon Age on PC. If you don't realize that there are a multitude of PC games where click-to-move is not and was never an option, then perhaps your bleating would makes sense. If you do realize it and choose to ignore it in order to make a paper thin argument, then your argument can be dismissed as the intellectual waste of space it is.

 

Your options are basically, ignorance or willful ignorance.

[MikeJW]

@Darkly Tranquil 

 

I read that too, and it is acutally more informative in the long run then the sales of one game.  Basically some business analysts think that this might be the last generation for the consoles.

 

Imagine if you will, we have three types of gaming devices.  Lowest to highest,(by computing power) we have.

 

1.  Mobile Devices

 

2.  Consoles

 

3. PC

 

 

Basically #1 is sucking the consumer base away from #2.   In addition #2  is only the equivalent of a low end PC, which means that for a little more money you can get a PC that is just as powerful  and you can do other things on it besides gaming.

 

I mean if you have to buy a PC in order to do your office work at home, and you knew that even the cheapest PC out there could play games just as well the Xbox One, would you then go buy an Xbox One as well?  Because the truth is the cheapest PC out there actually is equivalent, roughly, to the Xbox One, or for that matter the PS4,

 

Finally, #1 can never successfully compete with #3, ever.  The PCs are easily more powerful than a mobile device, and always will be.  And some of that market are people who put a lot of money into their rigs, and therefore want to get their money's worth out of their games.  As a result they are not interested in the casual games the mobile devices have.  So in short, a different market for different people.

 

So basically #2 will just crushed between them and eliminated completely, with almost all of the pressure coming from #1, not #3.

 

 

 

Of course I am not a business analyst, I am just summing up what I have read in numerous articles.

 

Any business analyst that thinks this is the last generation for consoles is an idiot.

 

Games on mobile devices are mostly different than games on PC and consoles and are mostly for a different market. Some overlap, sure, but it's for different people. Saying mobile games will kill consoles/PCs is like claiming TVs will kill the movies.

 

And no, I can't buy the cheapest PC and play the same games as I can on Xbox 1 or PS4. Not even close. The cheapest PCs don't even have dedicated video cards. Go out and buy a PC from Wal-Mart or Best Buy for $400 like the average person and tell us how well it runs Inquisition or Witcher 3 or GTA5. Then factor in how often you have to upgrade a PC to keep up and keeping everything updated...why bother when I can buy a console and know it's going to run games for the next 5-7 years with no worry about updating drivers or hardware conflicts with games or having to upgrade hardware.

 

I used to be a mostly PC gamer but the fact it's almost all digital now is what drove me away. If games go mostly digital on consoles too in the future then I guess I'm going to be stuck playing old games or get out of it  completely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Consoles are too expensive for the manufacturers. I expect future "consoles" to basically be set-top boxes that allow players to stream games that are actually being run on cloud servers.

You'd never actually have the game.

[tmp7704]

Consoles are too expensive for the manufacturers. I expect future "consoles" to basically be set-top boxes that allow players to stream games that are actually being run on cloud servers.

That's just moving around the expensive hardware you still need to have somewhere in order to provide the service. Plus, it means you bog yourself with pile of hardware that's likely to be all the time either over- or under-utilized. See any MMO game ever for example of this.

[MikeJW]

Consoles are too expensive for the manufacturers. I expect future "consoles" to basically be set-top boxes that allow players to stream games that are actually being run on cloud servers.

You'd never actually have the game.

 

For the first year or two they lose money per console but the real money is that they get a portion on every game sold. Cloud streaming is not viable for mass market because most people don't even live in an area that has reliable enough high speed internet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For the first year or two they lose money per console but the real money is that they get a portion on every game sold. Cloud streaming is not viable for mass market because most people don't even live in an area that has reliable enough high speed internet.

Just wait. Space-based broadband is coming.

[Poison_Berrie]

They already do. It's for the best. PC gaming is dying out.

Just like all the other ten times PC gaming died, right.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's just moving around the expensive hardware you still need to have somewhere in order to provide the service. Plus, it means you bog yourself with pile of hardware that's likely to be all the time either over- or under-utilized. See any MMO game ever for example of this.

But actually having it run in the cloud should help with that. Then the infrastructure necessary can be dynamically assigned based on demand.

[tmp7704]

But actually having it run in the cloud should help with that. Then the infrastructure necessary can be dynamically assigned based on demand.

Yes but the demand is never stable. You know what happens on a MMO launch, when everyone wants to play the new thing? Now imagine the same thing happen to *every* game during holiday seasons, because there's dozens of new releases that people want to play and they have spare time to do just that. And the streaming company can't just get 2-3x more hardware online only so they mothball it and have it sitting idle for a few months when the demand goes back to the average.

[AlanC9]

Consoles are too expensive for the manufacturers. I expect future "consoles" to basically be set-top boxes that allow players to stream games that are actually being run on cloud servers.

You'd never actually have the game.

If that happens, it'll come to PC too, won't it? I guess that's a final solution to the piracy problem, depending on how strict they want to be with logging into the system.

[KaiserShep]

Consoles are too expensive for the manufacturers. I expect future "consoles" to basically be set-top boxes that allow players to stream games that are actually being run on cloud servers.
You'd never actually have the game.

As one who has had Time Warner sh** the bed on a few occasions, I very much hope that I can always just download the game entirely to my system's internal storage. Sure, it doesn't matter if it's a game like Destiny, but for an SP game it'd be nice to be able to play even when my service says no.

[AlanC9]

Such simplistic argument. Tsk. 
 
There are no sides. There's no PC demand to click to move, it's a frustration that comes from people playing Dragon Age on PC. If you don't realize that there are a multitude of PC games where click-to-move is not and was never an option, then perhaps your bleating would makes sense. If you do realize it and choose to ignore it in order to make a paper thin argument, then your argument can be dismissed as the intellectual waste of space it is.
 
Your options are basically, ignorance or willful ignorance.

You do realize that you just agreed with Psychevore about the whole click-to-move kerfuffle, right?

[AlanC9]

And no, I can't buy the cheapest PC and play the same games as I can on Xbox 1 or PS4. Not even close. The cheapest PCs don't even have dedicated video cards. Go out and buy a PC from Wal-Mart or Best Buy for $400 like the average person and tell us how well it runs Inquisition or Witcher 3 or GTA5. Then factor in how often you have to upgrade a PC to keep up and keeping everything updated...why bother when I can buy a console and know it's going to run games for the next 5-7 years with no worry about updating drivers or hardware conflicts with games or having to upgrade hardware.

Let's not overstate the difference. A mid-range PC is good for 5-7 years too. Longer if you can upgrade it. Hell, I'm using a Dell C521 right this minute. -- stock except for a 6670 I swapped in for the x1300, and an extra RAM module. (Yeah, Dell, I know, but the machine was a freebie, and my old rig blew up from cat fur in the air vents.) Runs everything before DAI just fine, as long as you didn't crank up the settings too much.

But I agree that most of the stuff you'll find in a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart is junk.
 

I used to be a mostly PC gamer but the fact it's almost all digital now is what drove me away. If games go mostly digital on consoles too in the future then I guess I'm going to be stuck playing old games or get out of it  completely.

You didn't actually say what the problem with digital is.