533 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

We know Skyrim has sold over 20 million. VGCHARTZ says almost 4 million physical on PC. Steam has sold almost 10 million on PC digitally.

That is around 14 million out of 20 million. You do not need to be a statistics major to do that math. But whatever. If you want to argue empirical evidence? Go for it. This is the Bioware forum after all. I expect it at this point...

That assumes I am accepting your numbers as fully accurate. So $10 million steam sales+$4 million physical copies. Does it take into account digital console sales or used copy sales. even best case argument with no hidden digital or used sales for consoles it's a 50/50 split.

And while the publisher does not value used sales I doubt they particularly value most steam sales after the first year given steals huge sales. I can pick it up for $5 right now, how many of that 10 million bought it on a whim as it was super cheap during a Holliday sale. When dropping $5 on a whim was it because it's cool modding or just to see the game. Some people get it for modding sure, but I doubt even on PC that is why most people buy it as opposed to a added bonus.

[Ahglock]

A few of those things can happen in 1.

Edit nvm guess that's what you're getting at.

Even 1 didn't go far enough. I thought turning off my powers and guns was cool but it needed to happen with enemies that could get me out of cover otherwise it just was a delay as i hid. And I want enemies to have access to the full scope of our abilities. In 1 they had a almost throw, overload and damping. Give them a full throw, lift etc.

the doesn't work on shielded enemies part makes it a more viable feature in enemy gameplay. When your shields drop you know you are vulnerable. Now it just wouldn't be too bullets.

[Pasquale1234]

For Skyrim? Nah. New games? Kind of. VGchartz is still  useful as a barometer for consoles, because most people buy physical on console still, because they can sell them at Gamestop etc. For PC? VGchartz is useless other than looking to see how many Collector's Editions we bought, and even then they have digital collectors editions (I bought the SWTOR one). We can't sell our used games, so there is no real appeal to a hard copy. We buy a game, start downloading it before official release (games usually have early download), and when the clock strikes midnight we are playing it.

I understand a lot of console users still prefer physical disks, primarily for resale purposes. (Actually, some PC gamers prefer physical, too, for different reasons.) Aside from the resale question, digital downloads offer a lot of the same conveniences on consoles as on PC.

But digital sales for consoles is growing. A couple of notes of interest:

This article, from about a year ago, claims that "Just under 20% of console game purchases were digital, according to MarketCast."
 
This page includes a blurb stating that "Bethesda’s hotly anticipated game launched on November 10, selling 1.87 million digital copies in three days, with 1.2 million of those copies were on PC."

Translated, > 1/3 of the digital copies sold in the first 3 days of Fallout 4's release were on consoles.

[Operator m1]

Halo 5, or any game for that matter, doesn't force microtransactions. You don't have to pay for the packs. Just play the MP, earn points, and use those.

Plus paying $60 for a game is a bargain, since the price never increased even with all the inflation. We should be paying almost twice that, but game companies kept it at $60.

 

The problem is that it's $60 for less than a full game, unless you're about to tell me the recent star wars battlefront was a full game on release?

 

I haven't claimed the base price of a game is going up. I have said the amount of a game we're getting for the $60 we pay has been going down. Star wars battlefront is an example of this, while witcher 3 is the complete opposite. Both came out this year. What's EA's excuse for star wars battlefront?

 

Btw, there was barely 9% inflation in the past 5 years. I don't know where you get 'twice that' from.

[Deathjester929]

That assumes I am accepting your numbers as fully accurate. So $10 million steam sales+$4 million physical copies. Does it take into account digital console sales or used copy sales. even best case argument with no hidden digital or used sales for consoles it's a 50/50 split.

And while the publisher does not value used sales I doubt they particularly value most steam sales after the first year given steals huge sales. I can pick it up for $5 right now, how many of that 10 million bought it on a whim as it was super cheap during a Holliday sale. When dropping $5 on a whim was it because it's cool modding or just to see the game. Some people get it for modding sure, but I doubt even on PC that is why most people buy it as opposed to a added bonus.

 

As opposed to accepting asinine statements and laughable made up statistics which are backed up by nothing but hot air?

 

Yup games on PC digital are cheaper. Want to know why? Because they do not have to give money to MS or Sony on each game sale. That is probably at LEAST 35-40 percent. They also save on shipping, packaging.

 

In the case of EA? They do not even have to give Steam a cut. They have their own service. They make MUCH more on every PC sale than on a console sale at launch. They prob make more until the game is at 60 percent off and at that point the game usually doesn't sell on console anymore....

 

http://steamspy.com/app/72850

 

Game has been 20 lately. It has not been lower. Games that are 5 dollars? Would not sell on console, have DLC where they make their money back (Borderlands is a good example). EA routinely puts ME games up for 10 bucks or under on Origin. Now add all the DLC to it. That trilogy is not selling on current console and console makers receive ZERO money from a used game sale at say Gamestop. 

 

But whatever. I am done explaining simple math and realities to someone who pulls statistics out of his arse, has no concept of where the money on each game sold goes. I could have a better conversation about economics and statistics with my German Shepherd than the Bioware forum. We have people here who actually think VGchartz represents PC game sales...

[Operator m1]

And if done well I have no objections. ME3mp was fine. I'd speed it up a little bit for my ideal but you can easily improve your manifest through play. I haven't played halo5 yet but there are plenty of games that allow in game building of money to purchase as opposed to micro transactions but the rate of gain is so slow that micro transactions are the only effective way to gain items. There are different levels of forced in this context.

 

If it's done well. I'm okay with how ME 3 handled it.

 

 

Halo 5 is about on par with Mass Effect 3. You can earn enough points for the highest pack in about 4-5 games of Warzone, while in ME3 you can get the highest pack in about 3-4 games on Silver difficulty.

 

Agreed. 

 

You can get the highest pack in ME3 after a single round of most gold games (20-25 minutes) OR 3 usd.

 

Minimum wage is more than 9 usd per hour in most states, which is in-line with ME3 MP pack prices : time.

 

As for Halo 5, last I remember, one warzone match could last around 20 minutes. So it would take me 80-100 minutes OR 3 usd.

 

Anyone with a job makes far more than that per hour.

 

Suddenly, paying for packs looks alot more attractive because of how much more you have to grind. Sure it's not forced per-se, but it is nudging the player to pay up with that little suggestion. That is a common practice in f2ps to make a grind steep enough to convince players to pay up (but not so high that it's blatantly obvious), and I don't want to see that gradual conditioning method in ME:A MP when I've already paid full price for the game.

[Ahglock]

As opposed to accepting asinine statements and laughable made up statistics which are backed up by nothing but hot air?

Yup games on PC digital are cheaper. Want to know why? Because they do not have to give money to MS or Sony on each game sale. That is probably at LEAST 35-40 percent. They also save on shipping, packaging.

In the case of EA? They do not even have to give Steam a cut. They have their own service. They make MUCH more on every PC sale than on a console sale at launch. They prob make more until the game is at 60 percent off and at that point the game usually doesn't sell on console anymore....

http://steamspy.com/app/72850

Game has been 20 lately. It has not been lower. Games that are 5 dollars? Would not sell on console, have DLC where they make their money back (Borderlands is a good example). EA routinely puts ME games up for 10 bucks or under on Origin. Now add all the DLC to it. That trilogy is not selling on current console and console makers receive ZERO money from a used game sale at say Gamestop.

But whatever. I am done explaining simple math and realities to someone who pulls statistics out of his arse, has no concept of where the money on each game sold goes. I could have a better conversation about economics and statistics with my German Shepherd than the Bioware forum. We have people here who actually think VGchartz represents PC game sales...

It's funny cause I'm thinking the same thing about you. You are closing your eyes to huge amounts of console sales that are not counted in your stats. I accept $14 million PC sales. And the bare minimum without used or digital sales for consoles is $14 million. Would those be enough to get to the 14%. I doubt it but it's still likely enough to blow PC sales out of the water. There is a reason Xbox one was trying to stamp out used sales. It is a very large market.

And while I admit I brought up them not caring about super discounted sales it's irrelevant to the discussion of why people buy these games.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

I'll never understand people that judges the quality of something based on numbers. I just don't.

[Pasquale1234]

Game has been 20 lately. It has not been lower. Games that are 5 dollars? Would not sell on console, have DLC where they make their money back (Borderlands is a good example). EA routinely puts ME games up for 10 bucks or under on Origin. Now add all the DLC to it. That trilogy is not selling on current console and console makers receive ZERO money from a used game sale at say Gamestop.

Funny you should mention that. I bought the ME trilogy from the Playstation store about a year ago.

I also bought Borderlands, Borderlands 2, and Bioshock during a flash sale last summer, when the Playstation store offered them for $5 apiece. The store has pretty frequent sales, and their flash sales offer deep discounts on older games, usually ~ $5 apiece. It isn't unusual for the sale prices to be better deals than used disks - and it's a way for the console manufacturers and game developers to capture some income they would miss if people purchased used disks instead.

[Ahglock]

^ I don't want to call it free as I was buying the PlayStation internet thing there equivalent to Xbox live and I got quite a few games with no additional cost. I can't remember them all but just cause 2 and a tomb raider game. Not sure if the ps4 has had much of anything like that. I get most of my discounted sales on PC. I don't know if I'm unusual in this regard but I get almost no DLC for games I buy on discount. If it's a game I was interested enough in to buy dlc I almost always but it at or near launch with no discount. Now if the game of year edition is super discounted I might buy that and get the dlc included in the package.

[Ahglock]

I'll never understand people that judges the quality of something based on numbers. I just don't.

Who is judging the quality?

The argument is Bethesda games sell primarily due to the ability to mod the games. The numbers show that at best for that argument half the sales are on PC the only modable platform at the time. And I doubt 100% or even close to the amount of PC gamers bought skyrim for modding. Good/bad somewhere between is irrelevant but at least 14 million people got the games and fairly overwhelming liked them without the potential to mod. It's probably closer to 20 million console sales with digital sales being somewhere between 10 and 30 percent and used sales being estimated at a minimum of 20% for roughly another 6 million in sales.

Again it's not a argument for it being good or bad as that's individual taste. It's whether modding is why people buy the game.

[Deathjester929]

It's funny cause I'm thinking the same thing about you. You are closing your eyes to huge amounts of console sales that are not counted in your stats. I accept $14 million PC sales. And the bare minimum without used or digital sales for consoles is $14 million. Would those be enough to get to the 14%. I doubt it but it's still likely enough to blow PC sales out of the water. There is a reason Xbox one was trying to stamp out used sales. It is a very large market.

And while I admit I brought up them not caring about super discounted sales it's irrelevant to the discussion of why people buy these games.

 

Why don't you tell me about all the "digital console sales" on Skyrim...and explain how 20-14 = somehow greater than 14.

 

Digital sales is a recent trend on consoles and not an old one. We also saw the biggest backlash ever at the attempted initial policy of Xbox to implement a similar system we have on PC where we cannot resell our games. At this point I am convinced you are marketing/astroturfing (probably Microsoft as they are a scumbag company that astroturfs all their products) for a console maker or have stock in one of them. No one could be this hard headed and ignorant, when confronted with hard numbers.

 

You want to act as if I am saying all games sell more on PC. All I was discussing was Skyrim and sandbox/mod games.

 

Oh and Xbox One is getting it's butt kicked by PC per Konami, and Ubisoft financial reports (and Ubisoft treats PC Gamers like garbage, so these numbers blow my mind). PS4 is the lead platform on most games at LAUNCH. Fallout 4? It will fall behind PC. 

 

http://www.dsogaming...-than-xbox-one/

http://www.dsogaming...t-in-q1-201516/

 

Both those articles are backed by actual financial reports and statements from the companies. But whatever. Enjoy the console and imaginary numbers on Skyrim you made up. PC Gaming is no longer a rich mans hobby. To be honest? It is cheaper than console gaming. Not that I care if you game on console. Have a blast.The financial landscape on sales has changed though. This is not the PS2/Xbox days or the Xbox 360/PS3 days. This is nor the 2000 dollar PC to match a console days. An 800 dollar PC will do 1440p.

 

If you actually look at my posts, I let console owners (Xbox One) know that a multi disc game is about to get backwards compatibility and that it most likely means they can play ME 2, 3 on XB1 soon. I do not hate console gamers, I do not like the "PCMR" stuff. As much as I dislike that? I hate BS artists who make up statistics and make insane claims more. You are the kind of ignorant, BS artist that created PCMR as a backlash in the first place.

 

The Xbox brand is far from what it used to be and PC Gamers hate MS at this point (for good reason) and many hope Vulkan API takes over. Sony is doing well though. Good for them. They almost went broke in the PS3 days. Luckily MS is so incompetent they built the same X86 PC "next gen console" with a GPU 1/3rd weaker from the same hardware vendor (AMD).

 

Anyways, I am now completely done with this conversation. You win I guess. Make some arguments with GTA V and Battlefront sales or something, where you can actually use real numbers, when we have FREE FPS games better than many FPS games on console like Unreal Tournament Alpha on PC, while ignoring how much money World Of Warcraft, League of Legends, or even SWTOR makes on PC. At least that is an argument you can actually back with facts or numbers...

 

[Pasquale1234]

^ I don't want to call it free as I was buying the PlayStation internet thing there equivalent to Xbox live and I got quite a few games with no additional cost. I can't remember them all but just cause 2 and a tomb raider game. Not sure if the ps4 has had much of anything like that. I get most of my discounted sales on PC. I don't know if I'm unusual in this regard but I get almost no DLC for games I buy on discount. If it's a game I was interested enough in to buy dlc I almost always but it at or near launch with no discount. Now if the game of year edition is super discounted I might buy that and get the dlc included in the package.

I've never actually subscribed to Playstation Plus - but I do purchase games and DLCs through the Playstation store.

I also have a Steam account, and have purchased several games at deep discount from them - most of which I've never played. I've seen quite a few other people comment about having a big backlog of games they've never played - that seems to be what we do when we see great deals on things we think we might like.

[Ahglock]

^^That's why I said I didn't trust your stats. The known console sales were 14 million those dont include digital or used sales. But you were using 14 million out of 20 million. The 20 million is a old number. There were over 8 million in Xbox sales and 6 million in PS3 sales. The digital and used is purely a estimate but using averages it's about a total 40% swing or another 6 million or so in sales. Now that's. 70/30 split and not a 86/14 but i took it as a moment in time stats where the 86/14 was true. I accepted your additional 10 million to the vg sales stats but you were not even accepting the vg sales stats for the consoles which showed 14 million in sales there.

Now if you are claiming vgsales stats are inflated for consoles I'll have to take your word for it.

[Iakus]

My Wishlist:

 

A lore-friendly way to get to Andromeda

 

No returning characters

 

ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of Shepard or The Shepard

 

No save imports

 

Biotics and other tech that operate in a way consistent with their codex entries

 

Shields and armor that protect you from different sources of damage

 

No stripperific outfits except in situations where such outfits may be appropriate (hint:  combat is not one of them)

 

Multiple endings which range from unicorn-farting rainbows to utter death and despair and everything in between.  Not this polychromatic "bittersweet" stuff that gets passed off as "deep"

 

Romances more meaningful than "hit flirt key for sexitimes"

 

Numerous opportunities to talk with and even argue with companions

 

More than two spokes on the dialogue wheel

[Lucca_de_Neon]

My Wishlist:

 

A lore-friendly way to get to Andromeda

 

No returning characters

 

ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of Shepard or The Shepard

 

No save imports

 

Biotics and other tech that operate in a way consistent with their codex entries

 

Shields and armor that protect you from different sources of damage

 

No stripperific outfits except in situations where such outfits may be appropriate (hint:  combat is not one of them)

 

Multiple endings which range from unicorn-farting rainbows to utter death and despair and everything in between.  Not this polychromatic "bittersweet" stuff that gets passed off as "deep"

 

Romances more meaningful than "hit flirt key for sexitimes"

 

Numerous opportunities to talk with and even argue with companions

 

More than two spokes on the dialogue wheel

You have a way with words that i really enjoy lol!

My wishlist is more "social" and less "technical". I would really appreciate a change of pace from the back to back missions. Damn be the monotony! I want things taken from the Citadel DLC and augmented in true ME fashion (the amounts of dialogue and activities that you realise with your squad were incremented in comparison to ME1 and i want to see the same thing happen in ME:A) 

EDIT: btw, thank you for bringing this back on topic. I was getting tired of seeing people trowing reports at each other

[Operator m1]

EDIT: btw, thank you for bringing this back on topic. I was getting tired of seeing people trowing reports at each other

 

Technically I was. I'm still wishing EA releases ME:A the game worth its purchase price, since their last title wasn't, while witcher 3 shows there's no excuse for releasing half-done games for $60.

[Applepie_Svk]

Technically I was. I'm still wishing EA releases ME:A the game worth its purchase price, since their last title wasn't, while witcher 3 shows there's no excuse for releasing half-done games for $60.

 

or even better with SW, ask 120 for full season pack... lol

[Ahglock]

You know I'd pay 120 for a RPGs full season pack assuming the added content was additional story and missions maybe a new character. What rubs me wrong is the battlefield one where you are paying another $60 for maps and in a MP environment your odds of getting a match goes down if you don't have all the maps. Anyone in the tech field please correct me but my impression is they can slap maps together much easier than they can slap together SP content. So I end up feeling cheated.

[Ahglock]

^ Iakus.

Do you really want lore consistent biotics where you get super exhausted after a few small uses or are you just saying more like ME1?

[Deathjester929]

Guy who disagrees with Todd Howard about the game in question

 

“PC is resurgent,” enthused Howard. “Skyrim did better than we’ve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And that’s where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time. And it’s exciting that the new consoles are very PC-like. That opens up avenues for us going forward to do things that we’ve wanted to do in the past. There are kind of random ideas we’re working on right now, and it’s like, ‘Wow, I think there’s potential here to do some really cool stuff.’”

 

http://www.rockpaper...-4-for-a-while/

 

PC sales of Skyrim are why Howard wanted to add PC mods to Fallout 4 on console in the first place. It keeps the sales going long after they dry up without mods. 

Still aren't going to get texture mods. That is a hardware limitation. They cannot just allocate more ram for textures (VRAM) for the mods...

 

**Mod edit**

[Ahglock]

I'm curious in your rant where did I disagree with Todd Howard in this. Im pretty sure he never said people only buy our games because of mods, because you know our games suck without them.

Everything you quoted from him I agree with. Mods do add life to the game, it is great that consoles are at the point they can integrate mods into them.

None of that means most people buy their games for mods.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

^ Iakus.
Do you really want lore consistent biotics where you get super exhausted after a few small uses or are you just saying more like ME1?

http://youtu.be/-K7fCQlUhj0



I would rather have a power meter with biotic/tech abilities linked together rather than, individual cooldowns for each. I would suggest that they should revamp biotics and tech to have more oomph. I want specific powers to have an overhaul on my abilities, for example I play Adept and I upgrade my singularity to it's apex I want to create a biotic dark rift to suck up my enemies into the black hole instead of floating up the air all the time, and when the rift gets bigger it will explode damage and turn my enemies into ash, or my annihilation field to do devastating damage to enemies by disintegration, turn vehicles into molten slag. I want to be a force of destruction when it comes to biotics, to feel biotic power like it should be.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

1. Space Vikings.
2. Viking-themed starship
3. Attractive female blonde squadmate with braids.
4. Genocidal reptilian aliens called Nidhoggans. (based on the dragon who gnaws the root of Yggdrasil.)

http://youtu.be/-K7fCQlUhj0

[Iakus]

^ Iakus.

Do you really want lore consistent biotics where you get super exhausted after a few small uses or are you just saying more like ME1?

It would certainly be interesting to be able to perform only a few devastating biotic attacks on a given mission before suffering debilitating effects on the character.

 

But essentially I want a consistent rules set.  I don't want more scenes like Aria tearing open a plasma curtain with her biotics when biotics aren't supposed to do anything against energy.  FOr example.