TheGreatOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,214
http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/pc-games-have-surpassed-console-games-globally/033849
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...-PC-Has-Surpassed-Console-in-Terms-of-Revenue
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/
Although it's hard to tell how reliable and accurate the original source is, that's an interesting headline nonetheless.
It seems like there's a whole new breed of PC gamers out there. This culture of buying games digitally dirt cheap in bundles (and never playing half of them) and mostly playing alternative (*) games is very alien to me. I use "alternative" as an umbrella term to describe the wide spectrum of faggotry that consists of early access(/greenlight/eternally stuck in open beta), F2P, sandbox games with no purpose and "art" games with no gameplay. The kind of shit that no one has ever heard of (for a reason) that pretentious pseudo intellectual cunt Errant Signal likes to make entire videos about (or worse yet, use as an example in comparisons, as if this shit was some kind of established name in gaming you can freely refer to whenever analyzing mechanics and comparing it to other games, the same way you do to legit games). Or alternatively the kind of shit that every popular "Youtube gaming celebrity" has to play because it's the flavor of the week. On that note: PewDiePie is the most subscribed channel on Youtube and he's mainly a PC gamer. So even if Facebook games have been counted into those numbers, you still can't ignore the huge market segment that is casual PC gamers. PewDiePie's popularity alone makes it apparent.
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/15/steam-has-75-million-active-users-valve-announces-at-dev-days/
(*)=I think the term "independent" should be reserved for developers like Cleve. "Alternative" is a more apt term to describe all the garbage "indy games" that these hipster game designers are churning out these days
What are these numerous modern PC gamers so proud about? You can constantly see their type spewing PC master race rhetoric on the internet. Like I'm supposed to be impressed that they can play the latest popamole AAA games with a slightly faster frame rate and better graphics? Oh and it's actually 11.5% cheaper than the console version... as long as you don't mind DRM, the fact that it's DL only (meaning that as soon as it becomes unprofitable for the service provider to host their servers, you can't play it anymore unless you keep the game installed on your hard drive for the rest of your life) and the fact you can't sell your game or show it to a friend/play it on another computer.
If you're not making any use of the hardware's strengths in game design, why bother touting it as some kind of example of superiority when it has nothing to do with the greatness of the platform? Like I've said before (because I'm super important and people care about my opinions), it's the design that matters, platform is irrelevant (unless you actually take it into account in design). Modern popamole AAA trash is still trash when you play it on a PC.
I guess I ought to get to my point by now: if PC gaming is so damn profitable these days, why aren't we getting any good big budget PC games like we used to get before 2002/2004? Now the most obvious answer to that question is a very predictable one when asking it here on Codex. But let's pretend for a moment that playing turn based CRPGs does not in fact give you genetic immunity against the airborne disease that was released to the earth's atmosphere during 9/11 attacks that decreased the cognitive capacity of humans by 25%. Let's say that the reason behind decline was mostly caused by profitability issues (X) rather than Western civilization's inevitable decline to planet of the apes. Now that there's a much larger install base and PC gaming has proven to be much more profitable than before, shouldn't that make publishers more willing to fund the type of "big budget PC games" we got before the Xbox launched and became successful?
(X)=As in Looking Glass, Origin, SSI, Sir Tech and other similar developers would've stayed in business if they would've had more paying customers, as opposed to developers who would've dumbed down their games either way in order to appeal to a broader audience in hopes of making even bigger profits.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...-PC-Has-Surpassed-Console-in-Terms-of-Revenue
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/
Although it's hard to tell how reliable and accurate the original source is, that's an interesting headline nonetheless.
It seems like there's a whole new breed of PC gamers out there. This culture of buying games digitally dirt cheap in bundles (and never playing half of them) and mostly playing alternative (*) games is very alien to me. I use "alternative" as an umbrella term to describe the wide spectrum of faggotry that consists of early access(/greenlight/eternally stuck in open beta), F2P, sandbox games with no purpose and "art" games with no gameplay. The kind of shit that no one has ever heard of (for a reason) that pretentious pseudo intellectual cunt Errant Signal likes to make entire videos about (or worse yet, use as an example in comparisons, as if this shit was some kind of established name in gaming you can freely refer to whenever analyzing mechanics and comparing it to other games, the same way you do to legit games). Or alternatively the kind of shit that every popular "Youtube gaming celebrity" has to play because it's the flavor of the week. On that note: PewDiePie is the most subscribed channel on Youtube and he's mainly a PC gamer. So even if Facebook games have been counted into those numbers, you still can't ignore the huge market segment that is casual PC gamers. PewDiePie's popularity alone makes it apparent.
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/15/steam-has-75-million-active-users-valve-announces-at-dev-days/
(*)=I think the term "independent" should be reserved for developers like Cleve. "Alternative" is a more apt term to describe all the garbage "indy games" that these hipster game designers are churning out these days
What are these numerous modern PC gamers so proud about? You can constantly see their type spewing PC master race rhetoric on the internet. Like I'm supposed to be impressed that they can play the latest popamole AAA games with a slightly faster frame rate and better graphics? Oh and it's actually 11.5% cheaper than the console version... as long as you don't mind DRM, the fact that it's DL only (meaning that as soon as it becomes unprofitable for the service provider to host their servers, you can't play it anymore unless you keep the game installed on your hard drive for the rest of your life) and the fact you can't sell your game or show it to a friend/play it on another computer.
If you're not making any use of the hardware's strengths in game design, why bother touting it as some kind of example of superiority when it has nothing to do with the greatness of the platform? Like I've said before (because I'm super important and people care about my opinions), it's the design that matters, platform is irrelevant (unless you actually take it into account in design). Modern popamole AAA trash is still trash when you play it on a PC.
I guess I ought to get to my point by now: if PC gaming is so damn profitable these days, why aren't we getting any good big budget PC games like we used to get before 2002/2004? Now the most obvious answer to that question is a very predictable one when asking it here on Codex. But let's pretend for a moment that playing turn based CRPGs does not in fact give you genetic immunity against the airborne disease that was released to the earth's atmosphere during 9/11 attacks that decreased the cognitive capacity of humans by 25%. Let's say that the reason behind decline was mostly caused by profitability issues (X) rather than Western civilization's inevitable decline to planet of the apes. Now that there's a much larger install base and PC gaming has proven to be much more profitable than before, shouldn't that make publishers more willing to fund the type of "big budget PC games" we got before the Xbox launched and became successful?
(X)=As in Looking Glass, Origin, SSI, Sir Tech and other similar developers would've stayed in business if they would've had more paying customers, as opposed to developers who would've dumbed down their games either way in order to appeal to a broader audience in hopes of making even bigger profits.
